Court Says Recording Of Public Interaction Involving Police Officer Not A 'Confidential Personnel Record'

from the screw-the-people-that-pay-our-salaries dept

The city of Eureka, California loves its cops but hates it citizens. How else can you explain its two-year legal battle to keep police camera footage out of the public's reach?

The North Coast Journal has been fighting with the city for the release of dash cam footage of an arrest of a 14-year-old that led to criminal excessive force charges. The city had argued that no footage was accessible via public records requests, an idea the appellate court found ridiculous.

So, for two years, it fought against transparency and accountability, funding its fight with taxpayers' money while working in opposition of their interests. Now, taxpayers are on the hook for the paper's legal fees as well. The backstory is this:

After criminal charges were dismissed, the Journal submitted a California Public Records Act request in August of 2014 asking for a copy of the video — a request the city denied, citing the discretionary exemptions for police investigative files and personnel records. In November of 2014, the Journal filed a petition in juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code 827, which carves out a process for members of the public to access juvenile court records, which are generally considered confidential.

In May of the following year, after reviewing the arrest video, [Superior Court Judge Christopher] Wilson granted the Journal’s request, finding the public interest in seeing the footage outweighed any privacy concerns and ordered the video released. The city then appealed, arguing that Wilson erred in his interpretation of the law and was allowing the Journal to circumvent state laws severely limiting access to confidential police officer personnel records — a series of statutes known collectively as Pitchess.

[Attorney Paul] Boylan countered that the video simply wasn’t the kind of record that would be protected by Pitchess, as it captured public employees carrying out their publicly entrusted duties on a public street and was not something generated by an internal affairs investigation or a disciplinary proceeding.

That was the city's argument: that any footage captured by police cameras could be withheld under these public records law exemptions. It actually claimed that dash cam footage was a "confidential personnel record." The court pointed out that all a camera does is capture footage of incidents and interactions. Even if used in disciplinary proceedings, the footage is not, in and of itself, a disciplinary record.

And yet the city continued to fight. It petitioned the state Supreme Court to depublish the lower court's decision so it couldn't be considered precedential. It wanted a standalone opinion that pertained to a single requested recording, not something that could be used to force it hand over more footage more often.

Maybe it's not fair to say Eureka hates its residents. Maybe it just thinks its law enforcement officers are more deserving of its effort and spent funds. But nothing about its fight suggests it's at all interested in either a better police force or a better relationship with the people paying for its opacity efforts. Government entities already have a plethora of exemptions available to keep info out of the hands of the public.

Claiming video of a public encounter involving a public servant is somehow a "confidential record" is completely asinine. Fortunately, the state Supreme Court has refused its petition, which will save taxpayers the expense of funding yet another attack on their own transparency interests.

Filed Under: california, confidential, eureka, foia, police, public records, recording


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Norahc (profile), 8 Nov 2016 @ 6:16pm

    About time

    It's about time we change the system so the taxpayers don't end up footing the bill for these bogus legal fights. Governments would act more cautiously of the employees knew they would be paying for this BS out of their own pockets, unless of course, they can convince the unions to pay for it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Atkray (profile), 8 Nov 2016 @ 6:42pm

      Re: About time

      Not their own pockets, out of the department budget.
      Making it come out of their own pockets just shifts the cost to yet another party.

      Making it come out of the department budget puts the costs where they belong and tilts the playing field towards level.

      They will have to consider the cost of losing, making them much more receptive to compliance or even compromise.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 8 Nov 2016 @ 10:33pm

      Re: About time

      I don't disagree that this was a bogus legal fight, however, how would a law like this discern a illegitimate from a legitimate disagreement over the law? After all, the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist is which side of the question you are on.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Michael, 9 Nov 2016 @ 11:18am

        Re: Re: About time

        Something similar to an anti-SLAPP law that provided a process to determine if a case was of the sort in which fee shifting should apply and reduce the time involved in getting to that decision.

        If unions were paying for some kind of insurance for this happening, they would then have incentive to remove bad actors rather than protect them.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Nov 2016 @ 7:02pm

    Whatever's not going to like this at all, is he?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Padpaw (profile), 8 Nov 2016 @ 7:19pm

    petty dictators all over the states know that the public is apathetic to when their leaders intentionly ignore laws unless it directly affects them

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    discordian_eris (profile), 8 Nov 2016 @ 7:50pm

    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

    Et non est civis, videbunt enim nimis.

    (Not the citizens, then they will see too much.)

    The cops and the politicians just refuse to understand that we actually WANT to see how the sausage is made. Fat, gristle and filler.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.