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.

Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

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


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. 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.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  2. 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.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  3. icon
    Norahc (profile), 8 Nov 2016 @ 6:51pm

    Re: Re: About time

    Except the department budgets are funded by the taxpayers, so they would still be getting screwed to over.

    link to this | view in thread ]

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

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

    link to this | view in thread ]

  5. 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

    link to this | view in thread ]

  6. 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.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  7. icon
    JoeCool (profile), 8 Nov 2016 @ 10:16pm

    Re: Re: Re: About time

    What he means is that the department is not allowed to raise their budget to cover the fine. It comes out of their budget and they just have to make due with whatever is left.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  8. 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.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  9. icon
    orbitalinsertion (profile), 9 Nov 2016 @ 6:56am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: About time

    Then they can further under-serve the public and increase civil asset forfeiture actions.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  10. 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.

    link to this | view in thread ]


Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

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