In Loder v. Municipal Court (1976) 17 Cal.3d 859, Loder sought to have his arrest record erased after charges against him had been dismissed. The trial court denied his motion and Loder filed a petition for writ of mandate claiming a violation of his constitutional right to privacy. The Supreme Court found that the trial court properly denied the motion because there is a substantial governmental interest in consulting arrest records for multiple purposes by the courts, police, prosecutors, probation departments, and parole authorities. For example prior arrests may be used for investigating other crimes, they may be used by the prosecutor in exercising discretion to file charges at all or in determining whether to file misdemeanor or felony charges, the court may consider a prior arrest record in determining the question of pretrial release, prior arrest records may be utilized by the probation department in a presentence report , and arrest records may be considered in determining parole release dates from prison. ( Loder, supra at pp. 864-868.) The Court concluded that there is "a substantial governmental interest" in retaining records of arrests that do not lead to convictions. (Id. at p. 868.) "The interest may be characterized generally as the promotion of more efficient law enforcement and criminal justice; more specifically, the state's purpose is to protect the public from recidivist offenders." (Id. at p. 864.) Considering the limits on dissemination of arrest information outside of law enforcement, the court concluded that law enforcement retention of this information did not violate the state constitutional right of privacy. (Id. at pp. 869-877.)