In City of Richmond v. Superior Court (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1430, the court held a city properly denied a newspaper's request under the California Public Records Act (CPRA) for personnel records pertaining to an investigation of a police officer. (City of Richmond, supra, 32 Cal. App. 4th at pp. 1438-1440.) The court found that although the CPRA does not specifically restrict the public from obtaining such records, the CPRA provides that a public entity need not disclose records that are " 'exempted or prohibited pursuant to federal or state law . . . .' " (City of Richmond, supra, 32 Cal. App. 4th at p. 1440, quoting Gov. Code, 6254, subd. (k).) The City of Richmond court concluded that section 832.7 was a state law that "prohibited" disclosure of peace officer personnel records within the meaning of the CPRA. (32 Cal.App.4th at p. 1440.) In reaching this determination, the City of Richmond court rejected the newspaper's arguments that, under Bradshaw, section 832.7 did not apply because the information was not being sought in connection with a civil or criminal action. The court explained that it "disagreed with Bradshaw's suggestion that Penal Code section 832.7 did not establish the confidentiality of these records. If the Legislature intended only to define procedures for disclosure in criminal and civil proceedings, it could have done so by stating that the records 'shall not be disclosed in any criminal or civil proceeding except by discovery pursuant to the Evidence Code sections . . .,' without also designating the information 'confidential.' " (32 Cal.App.4th at p. 1439.)