In Castanares v. Superior Court (City of Chula Vista), published December 27, 2023, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division 1 granted in part and denied in part a request for writ relief in a California Public Records Act case. The respondent city's police department was selected as the first in the nation to test the use of drones as first responders. Drones were dispatched before officers arrived, and would provide incident commanders and responding officers livestreamed video of the scene before arrival. The petitioner requested. The petitioner requested all video footage from drone flights conducted during a one-month period, along with multiple records concerning the drone program. The request asked the city to redact any videos that might be part of ongoing or pending investigations, but providing a log of information about such videos. The city responded by informing the petitioner that information could be found on on the city's website (which set forth extensive information about the drone flights) and that the drone footage was exempt under the investigatory records exemption per Government Code section 7923.600, subdivision (a). The chief of police offered to give the requestor a tour of the drone operations, allow him to ask direct questions of the program administrators, and discuss more limited disclosure. Instead, the petitioner filed suit, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and a writ requiring the city to allow the petitioner to inspect and obtain copies of all responsive documents. The petitioner stated that the tour should be handled through formal discovery. After conducting limited discovery, the matter went to trial on the sole issue of whether the city had to provide the drone video footage. The trial court ruled for the city, holding the drone footage categorically exempt under section 7923.600. It further determined that the city established the CPRA request imposed an unreasonable burden on the city's resources with no countervailing benefit--which the parties and appellate court agreed was a reference to the "catch-all" CPRA exemption under Government Code section 7922.000.
The appellate court disagreed that the footage was categorically exempt as investigatory records. The court envisioned three possible categories that the drone video footage could fall under. The first is drone video footage that is part of an investigatory file. That footage would be exempt from disclosure under the CPRA per section 7923.600, subdivision (a)'s investigatory files exception. The seconds consists of instances where officers used a drone to investigate whether a violation of law was occurring or had occurred but did not create a corresponding investigatory file. Drone footage investigating suspected crimes being committed would be exempt under section 7923.600, subdivision (a)'s investigatory records exception. The third category is footage from a drone used to determine what kind of assistance is required, not to investigate a suspected violation of law. The court rejected the trial court's conclusion that because drones are dispatched only in response to 911 calls, all such footage is exempt as investigatory records. Instead, the city should categorize the drone footage among the three categories, either by reviewing the footage or using related information. After the city categorizes the footage, the requesting party should be permitted to challenge or otherwise question any of the city's determinations, with the trial court resolving any issues of disputed fact. The appellate court also rejected the trial court's categorical finding that the catch-all provision applied, because of the time required to redact videos to protect privacy. Because the first two categories of videos are exempt as investigatory, the catchall provision need only be applied to the videos in the third category. The court cannot evaluate the burden of production without knowing the amount of footage that needs redaction. The city therefore did not carry its burden of establishing the catch-all exemption. The matter was remanded for further proceedings.
Comments