<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Police BodyCam Archives - Good Shepherd News - Fastest Growing Religious, Free Speech &amp; Political Content</title>
	<atom:link href="https://goodshepherdmedia.net/tag/police-bodycam/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://goodshepherdmedia.net/tag/police-bodycam/</link>
	<description>Christian, Political, ‎‏‏‎Social &#38; Legal Free Speech News &#124; Ⓒ2024 Good News Media LLC &#124; Shepherd for the Herd! God 1st Programming</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Jul 2023 07:11:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.3</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>Police BodyCam Footage Release &#8211; California</title>
		<link>https://goodshepherdmedia.net/police-bodycam-footage-release-california/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[The Truth News]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 16 Jul 2023 07:50:34 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Corruption Over the Years]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Digital]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Discovery]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guidelines and help]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal News The Motivation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[LHPD - La Habra PD]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Motions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Orange County DA Office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Self Help]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court - SCOTUS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Top Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tort]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Zee Truthful News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[👎Immunity Fails]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[👮🚨Wrongful💀Death/Abuse Caselaw]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[🚨👮Cops Gone Wild 🤡💩]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[🚨👮Cops to ➡️Criminals⚖️💩]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[body cam laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Body Camera Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Body Worn Camera Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bodycam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[BodyCam Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bodycam video]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[getting bodycam footage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[getting Police Records]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[How to get bodycam video]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[information act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obtaining Police Records]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Police BodyCam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Police Records]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://goodshepherdmedia.net/?p=13798</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Police BodyCam Footage Release &#8211; California Freedom of Information The federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and similar state laws give the public the right to obtain records from certain government entities. Journalists use these laws, also known as sunshine acts, open records laws, or right-to-know laws, to tell important stories about what’s happening in [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<h1 style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: #ff0000;">P<span style="color: #0000ff;">o</span>l<span style="color: #0000ff;">i</span>c<span style="color: #0000ff;">e</span> BodyCam Footage Release &#8211; <span style="color: #0000ff;">California</span></span></h1>
<header class="post-header">
<h1 class="post-header__entry-title"></h1>
<div class="post-header__breadcrumb">
<h2 id="post-breadcrumb-4" class="post-breadcrumb__title"></h2>
<h1 class="archive-header__title">Freedom of Information</h1>
<p class="archive-header__description">The federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and similar state laws give the public the right to obtain records from certain government entities. Journalists use these laws, also known as sunshine acts, open records laws, or right-to-know laws, to tell important stories about what’s happening in government that might otherwise be kept secret. While exemptions in the laws allow some information to be withheld, many government agencies at the local, state, and federal level routinely delay or deny records requests without proper justification. Explore our work in this area below. For our guide on the Federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), visit the FOIA Wiki. The FOIA Wiki has information on submitting requests, exemptions, administrative appeals, and most other topics related to the federal FOIA.</p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><a href="https://casetext.com/statute/california-codes/california-government-code/title-1-general/division-7-miscellaneous/chapter-35-inspection-of-public-records/article-1-general-provisions/section-6252-definitions#:~:text=(e)%20%22Public%20records%22,of%20physical%20form%20or%20characteristics." target="_blank" rel="noopener"><strong>Cal. Gov. Code § 6252</strong></a></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;"><strong><span style="color: #3366ff;"><em>(e) &#8220;Public records&#8221; includes any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public&#8217;s business prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics. &#8220;Public records&#8221; in the custody of, or maintained by, the Governor&#8217;s office means any writing prepared on or after January 6, 1975.</em></span></strong></p>
<h1 class="post-header__entry-title">Access to police body-worn camera video</h1>
</div>
<div class="post-header__subheader">This map shows current state legislation status and police department policies regarding public access to police worn body camera footage.</div>
</header>
<div class="post__rich-text">
<p>This map shows the current status of state legislation and police department policies regarding public access to police body-worn cameras (“bodycams” or “BWCs”) around the United States under public records laws. See more notes below.</p>
<p><em>To search the map, click on the button at the top right to open in full-screen. You can then search by city, state, or police department. </em></p>
<p><b><i>State legislation and case law</i></b></p>
<p>The color of the state indicates the status of legislation regarding access to BWC videos. By clicking the state you can find more information and see a link to the bill(s) and/or case(s).</p>
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<div></div>
</td>
<td>Blue = Legislation regarding public accessibility to body-worn camera footage has been proposed, but not passed.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<div></div>
</td>
<td>Yellow = A law has been passed regarding public access to body-worn camera footage.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<div></div>
</td>
<td>Brown = No laws regarding public access to body-worn camera footage have been passed. However, some states have introduced or passed bills regarding the implementation of BWCs that do not directly address the question of whom should have public access.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<div></div>
</td>
<td>Green = A court case has decided the rules regarding public access to body-worn camera footage. Click the state to read more about the decision.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p><b><i>Department policies</i></b></p>
<p>Police department policies can be found by clicking on the black camera icons. The wording of each department’s policy regarding public access is shown in the description section. Please note — some police departments that have deployed body cameras may not have a written policy.</p>
<p>Because only a few states have passed state-wide rules regarding public access to BWC footage, most police departments are left to determine their own rules. As more states pass regulations, individual policies may change to comply with the state’s uniform policies. <a href="https://www.rcfp.org/resources/bodycams/">source</a></p>
</div>
<hr />
<h1 class="index-module_storyHeadlineText__Rgpv">New California law requiring release of police body camera footage goes into effect Monday</h1>
<p>A new California law requiring the release of law enforcement body camera footage goes into effect on Monday, July 1.</p>
<p><a class="themeColorForLinks" title="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB748" href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB748" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Assembly Bill 748</a> will require the release of recordings from body-worn cameras within 45 days of an incident, including if officers fired shots or if a use-of-force causes death or great bodily harm.</p>
<p>The bill was introduced by Assemblymember Phil Ting (D-San Francisco) and signed by Governor Jerry Brown in 2018.</p>
<p>According to Ting, prior to the passage of AB 748, California had no consistent policy regarding the release of body camera recordings. Many lawmakers who voted for the bill believe that footage from body-worn cameras can help shed light, increase transparency and provide clarity when there is confusion in the community after tragic events. <a href="https://krcrtv.com/news/local/new-california-law-requiring-release-of-police-body-camera-footage-goes-into-effect-monday" target="_blank" rel="noopener">source</a></p>
<hr />
<h2><strong>California Public Records Act GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 6250-6270 </strong></h2>
<h3><span style="color: #ff0000;">download</span> <a href="https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/25_California-Public-Records-Act.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><span style="color: #0000ff;">here</span></a> or <span style="color: #0000ff;"><a style="color: #0000ff;" href="https://www.openspaceauthority.org/system/user_files/Documents/25_California%20Public%20Records%20Act.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">source</a></span></h3>
<p class="jurisdiction__name">
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<h1 class="jurisdiction__title">California Public Records Guide</h1>
<header class="jurisdiction__header">
<div class="jurisdiction__info">
<div class="jurisdiction__laws">
<div class="law">
<h2 class="law__name">California Public Records Act <span class="law__shortname">(PRA)</span></h2>
<p class="bold law__citation"><a href="https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2016/code-gov/title-1/division-7/chapter-3.5" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Cal. Gov&#8217;t Code, Chapter 3.5 Inspection of Public Records</a></p>
<p class="law__summary">Enacted in 1968, Updated in 2013</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</header>
<p><main class="jurisdiction__main"></p>
<section class="analysis">&nbsp;</p>
</section>
<h2 class="gmail-law__name">California Public Records Act <span class="gmail-law__shortname">(PRA) </span>Overview</h2>
<ul>
<li>10 day response time among the shortest</li>
<li>No formal appeals process, requiring a lawsuit</li>
<li>“Purely personal” exemption can limit access to agency records</li>
</ul>
<p>Seeing as that the federal Freedom of Information Act was largely the result of efforts by Congressman John Moss of California, it should come as no surprise that the state was one of the first to enact a state-level public records law. It should come as a bit of surprise, however, that the law is a frustrating combination of good ideas with no enforcement.</p>
<p>Agencies are required to “comply” with a 10 day time frame, which puts it among the speediest states – assuming you get a clerk who knows the law and is interested in following it. A lack of any formal appeals process means an agency faces no consequences for a violation, unless you’re willing to sue. Fortunately, California does offer the opportunity to recoup attorney’s fees if the requester succeeds on “any significant issue.”</p>
<p>While that’s fairly straightforward in cases where a agency hasn’t responded in the allotted time frame, the law’s unclear language makes that more difficult when fighting an exemption. Rather than extend towards all records created by an agency, the law stipulates that the records must be “relating to the conduct of the public’s business,” and exempts “purely personal” information that happens to be on a public account. Though an agency must cite their reasoning, a broad “outweighing the public interest” catchall makes it tough to build a convincing case.</p>
<p>Despite these challenges (and due to the lack of any alternative), public records lawsuits are common – in fact, in 2013, citing the “tens of millions” the state was spending on the law annually, in 2013 the legislature added a measure to the budget that would gut the law entirely, turning it into “best practices.” Thanks to a massive outcry by journalists, the measure was defeated. <a href="https://www.muckrock.com/place/united-states-of-america/california/">source</a></p>
<section class="analysis">
<h2>The Law</h2>
<ul>
<li>Response within 10 days.</li>
<li>Applies to the executive branch and state agencies</li>
<li>No residency requirement.</li>
<li>No administrative appeal option.</li>
</ul>
<h3>Supplemental</h3>
<p>Definition of public records &#8211; <a href="https://casetext.com/statute/california-codes/california-government-code/title-1-general/division-7-miscellaneous/chapter-35-inspection-of-public-records/article-1-general-provisions/section-6252-definitions#:~:text=(e)%20%22Public%20records%22,of%20physical%20form%20or%20characteristics." target="_blank" rel="noopener">Cal. Gov’t Code § 6252(e)</a></p>
<h1 id="firstHeading" class="firstHeading page-header" lang="en"><span dir="auto">Article I, California Constitution</span></h1>
<p><a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Article_I,_California_Constitution#:~:text=only%2024%20sections.-,Section%201,safety%2C%20happiness%2C%20and%20privacy." target="_blank" rel="noopener">Constitution of the State of California</a></p>
<p><strong><em><span style="color: #3366ff;">“(b) (1) The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business, and, therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny.”</span></em></strong></p>
</section>
<p></main>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<h2><strong>TYPES OF REQUESTS — RIGHT TO INSPECT OR COPY PUBLIC RECORDS &#8211; </strong>2023 Revisions to the Public Records Act</h2>
<h3><span style="color: #ff0000;">download</span> <a href="https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/The-Peoples-Business_Final-2022.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><span style="color: #0000ff;">here</span></a> or <span style="color: #0000ff;"><a style="color: #0000ff;" href="https://www.calcities.org/docs/default-source/annual-conference---session-materials/the-people's-business_final-2022.pdf?sfvrsn=b428eb69_6" target="_blank" rel="noopener">source</a></span></h3>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<hr />
<h2><strong>Templates for Sample Requests</strong></h2>
<p><strong>Incident Based Request</strong>: Use this template if you want records related to a particular incident, like the investigative record for a specific police shooting, an arrest where you believe an officer may have been found to have filed a false report, or to find out whether complaint that an officer committed sexual assault was sustained.<br />
<a href="https://www.aclusocal.org/sites/default/files/aclu_socal_sb1421_pra_sample_incident_based_request.docx" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Download Word document</a> | <a href="https://www.aclusocal.org/sites/default/files/aclu_socal_sb1421_pra_sample_incident_based_request.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Download PDF</a></p>
<p><strong>Officer Based Request</strong>: Use this template if you want to find any public records of misconduct related to a particular officer or if he or she has been involved in past serious uses of force.<br />
<a href="https://www.aclusocal.org/sites/default/files/aclu_socal_sb1421_pra_sample_officer_based_request.docx" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Download Word document</a> | <a href="https://www.aclusocal.org/sites/default/files/aclu_socal_sb1421_pra_sample_officer_based_request.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Download PDF</a></p>
<hr />
<blockquote>
<h3><em><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">Beginning in 2016 with the California Court of Appeal’s ruling</span> in <a href="https://www.bbklaw.com/News-Events/Insights/2016/Legal-Alerts/07/California-Appellate-Court-Holds-Police-Video-of-A">City of Eureka v. Superior Court</a>, the court held that police “dashcam” footage was not protected as a confidential personnel record simply because it might later be used by a police department in connection with a complaint or investigation.</strong></em></h3>
</blockquote>
<hr />
<h2>Learn More&#8230;..</h2>
<h3><a href="https://goodshepherdmedia.net/california-cops-can-no-longer-pass-the-cost-of-digital-redaction-onto-public-records-requesters/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">California Cops Can No Longer Pass the Cost</a> of Digital Redaction onto Public Records Requesters</h3>
<hr />
<p>California Government Code Section 7922.535 states that each agency, upon request for a copy of record, shall, within 10 days from receipt of the request, determine whether the request, in whole or in part, seeks copies of disclosable public records in the possession of the agency and shall promptly notify the person making the request of the determination and the reasons therefore. In unusual circumstances, the time limit prescribed in this section may be extended, by written notice by the head of the agency, or his or her designee, to the person making the request, setting for the reasons for the extension and the date on which a determination is expected to be dispatched.</p>
<p>No notice shall specify a date that would result in an extension for more than 14 days.  Per Government Code section 7922.000, certain records of a personal nature which may be part of an application shall not be disclosed where the City has determined that the public interest in disclosure is outweighed by the public interest in nondisclosure.</p>
<p><a href="https://epic.org/state-law-enforcement-body-camera-policies/">https://epic.org/state-law-enforcement-body-camera-policies/</a></p>
<hr />
<h2>STATE LAWS: CALIFORNIA, FLORIDA AND NORTH DAKOTA</h2>
<p><a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB748">California</a> considers body-camera videos public records and requires law enforcement to release video to the public no later than 45 days after an incident is recorded. The law has minor exceptions for disclosure including if releasing the video would violate the privacy rights of individuals depicted. <a href="http://laws.flrules.org/2015/41">Florida</a> and <a href="http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/64-2015/documents/15-0676-03000.pdf?20150521143502">North Dakota</a> have recently passed laws regarding the availability of police cam footage under public records laws. Florida’s <a href="http://laws.flrules.org/2015/41">law</a> exempts from public records law any body camera video obtained inside a private residence, a health care, mental health care or social services facility or is taken in a place that a reasonable person would expect to be private. North Dakota’s <a href="http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/64-2015/documents/15-0676-03000.pdf?20150521143502">law</a> exempts any images taken in a private place by law enforcement from open records law.</p>
<p>In 2018, the California Legislature passed <strong>SB1421, The Right To Know Act</strong>, which gives the public the right to see certain records relating to <strong>police misconduct</strong> and <strong>serious uses of force</strong>. You can now request these records under the Public Records Act (&#8220;PRA&#8221;) — a law that gives the public the right to see the non-confidential documents of our state and local government agencies.</p>
<p><strong>Does it cost money to make a request?</strong></p>
<p>An agency is only allowed to charge for the &#8220;direct costs&#8221; of duplicating the records, or the cost to create certain documents if you are asking it to create a document — like a list — that it does not already have.<a href="https://www.aclusocal.org/en/know-your-rights/access-ca-police-records#footnote8">8</a> You should always ask the agency to waive costs in your initial request, but they are not required to do so. You also have the option to inspect the records by looking at them at the agency during its regular business hours, which you can do for free. You can always inspect documents for free, and then request copying only of those that you want.</p>
<p><strong>Can the agency ask me to pay for the time it takes them to locate files or redact audio or video?</strong></p>
<p>No. The Public Records Act allows agencies only the charge for the &#8220;direct costs of duplication, or a statutory fee if appliable.&#8221;<a href="https://www.aclusocal.org/en/know-your-rights/access-ca-police-records#footnote9"><sup>9</sup></a> That means that agencies can charge for the costs of paper and ink, or for the disks or drives on which they provide data, but cannot charge for the time their staff spend finding records, making copies or even redacting documents. Despite this, for several years, police agencies still tried to charge requestors an hourly rate, often amounting to thousands of dollars, for the time their staff spent editing body camera video to redact confidential information, arguing that editing video was more like programming a computer to extract data (something they are allowed to charge for) than it was like redacting a document.</p>
<p>However, on May 28, 2020, the California Supreme Court in <strong><em>National Lawyers Guild v. City of Hayward</em></strong> (a case brought by the ACLU of Northern California) rejected this argument<a href="https://www.aclusocal.org/en/know-your-rights/access-ca-police-records#footnote10"><sup>10</sup></a> and held that the Public Records Act <strong>does not allow police departments to charge requestors of police body camera footage for the staff time</strong> required to locate that footage and edit it to redact audio &amp; video to remove private information.</p>
<p>If an agency has tried to charge you for the time required to make redactions in audio or video, please see our <a href="https://www.aclusocal.org/sites/default/files/sb_1421_model_ltr_video_redaction_charges.docx">model follow-up letter</a>a&gt; notifying them of the Hayward decision and informing them such charges are unlawful.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.aclusocal.org/en/know-your-rights/access-ca-police-records">https://www.aclusocal.org/en/know-your-rights/access-ca-police-records</a></p>
<hr />
<h2><a id="AB1246"></a>AB 1246 LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL&#8217;S DIGEST</h2>
<p>AB 1246, as amended, Quirk. <span style="text-decoration: line-through;">Peace officers. </span><em>Body worn cameras: peace officers: limited disclosure.</em></p>
<p><em>(1) The California Public Records Act requires that public records be open to inspection at all times during the office hours of a state or local agency and that every person has a right to inspect any public record, except as specifically provided. The act further requires that a reasonably segregable portion of a public record be available for inspection by any person requesting the public record after deletion of the portions that are exempted by law.</em></p>
<p><em>This bill would, notwithstanding any other law, prohibit the disclosure of a recording made by a body worn camera, as defined, except for requiring disclosure to the person whose image is recorded by the body worn camera.</em></p>
<p><em>(2) Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.</em></p>
<p><em>This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.</em></p>
<p><em>(3) The California Constitution requires local agencies, for the purpose of ensuring public access to the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies, to comply with a statutory enactment that amends or enacts laws relating to public records or open meetings and contains findings demonstrating that the enactment furthers the constitutional requirements relating to this purpose.</em></p>
<p><em>This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.</em></p>
<p><em>(4) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.</em></p>
<p><em>This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.</em></p>
<p><a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1246">https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1246</a></p>
<hr />
<p><strong>THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:</strong></p>
<p><strong><em>SECTION 1. </em></strong><strong> </strong><strong><em>Section 6254.32 is added to the Government Code, to read:</em></strong></p>
<p><em>6254.32.</em></p>
<p><em> (a) Notwithstanding any other law, including, but not limited to, Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2 of the Penal Code, a recording made by a body worn camera is confidential and shall not be disclosed, except that the recording shall be disclosed to the person whose image is recorded by the body worn camera.</em></p>
<p><em>(b) The following definitions shall apply to this section:</em></p>
<p><em>(1) “Body worn camera” means a device attached to the uniform or body of a peace officer that records video, audio, or both, in a digital or analog format.</em></p>
<p><em>(2) “Peace officer” means any person designated as a peace officer pursuant to Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2 of the Penal Code.SEC. 2.</em></p>
<p><em> The Legislature finds and declares that Section 1 of this act, which adds Section 6254.32 to the Government Code, imposes a limitation on the public’s right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies within the meaning of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution. Pursuant to that constitutional provision, the Legislature makes the following findings to demonstrate the interest protected by this limitation and the need for protecting that interest:</em></p>
<p><em>The need to protect individual privacy from the public disclosure of images captured by a body worn camera outweighs the interest in the public disclosure of that information.</em></p>
<p><em>SEC. 3.</em></p>
<p><em> The Legislature finds and declares that Section 1 of this act, which adds Section 6254.32 to the Government Code, furthers, within the meaning of paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) </em><a href="https://law.justia.com/constitution/california/article-i/section-3/#:~:text=SEC.,consult%20for%20the%20common%20good."><strong>of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution</strong></a><em>, the purposes of that constitutional section as it relates to the right of public access to the meetings of local public bodies or the writings of local public officials and local agencies. Pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution, the Legislature makes the following findings:</em></p>
<p><em>Protecting the privacy of a person whose image is captured by body worn cameras on local peace officers enhances public safety and the protection of individual rights, thereby furthering the purposes of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution.</em></p>
<p><em>SEC. 4.</em></p>
<p><em> No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district under this act would result from a legislative mandate that is within the scope of paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution.</em></p>
<p><a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1246">https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1246</a></p>
<hr />
<h2>California Assembly Bill 2788 <strong>LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL&#8217;S DIGEST</strong></h2>
<p>AB 2788, as amended, Mathis. Public records.</p>
<p><span style="text-decoration: line-through;">The </span><em>Existing law, the </em>California Public Records<span style="text-decoration: line-through;"> Act</span><em> Act,</em> requires state and local agencies to make their records available for public inspection, except as provided. Existing law declares that public records are open to inspection during the office hours of the state or local agency and every person has a right to inspect any public record, except as specified.<em> Existing law requires each agency, upon a request for a copy of records, within 10 days from receipt of the request, to determine whether the request, in whole or in part, seeks copies of disclosable public records in the possession of the agency and to promptly notify the person making the request of the determination and the reasons therefor.</em></p>
<p>This bill would<span style="text-decoration: line-through;"> make nonsubstantive changes to these provisions.</span><em> extend that 10-day deadline to 10 business days.</em></p>
<p><em>The California Constitution requires local agencies, for the purpose of ensuring public access to the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies, to comply with a statutory enactment that amends or enacts laws relating to public records or open meetings and contains findings demonstrating that the enactment furthers the constitutional requirements relating to this purpose.</em></p>
<p><em>This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.</em></p>
<p>THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:</p>
<p><em>SECTION 1.</em></p>
<p><em>Section 7922.535 of the Government Code is amended to read:</em></p>
<p>7922.535.</p>
<p>(a) Each agency, upon a request for a copy of records, shall, within 10<em> business</em> days from receipt of the request, determine whether the request, in whole or in part, seeks copies of disclosable public records in the possession of the agency and shall promptly notify the person making the request of the determination and the reasons therefor. If the agency determines that the request seeks disclosable public records, the agency shall also state the estimated date and time when the records will be made available.</p>
<p>(b) In unusual circumstances, the time limit prescribed in this article and Article 1 (commencing with Section 7922.500) may be extended by written notice from the head of the agency or a designee to the person making the request, setting forth the reasons for the extension and the date on which a determination is expected to be dispatched. No notice shall specify a date that would result in an extension for more than 14 days.</p>
<p>(c) As used in this section, “unusual circumstances” means the following, but only to the extent reasonably necessary to the proper processing of the particular request:</p>
<p>(1) The need to search for and collect the requested records from field facilities or other establishments that are separate from the office processing the request.</p>
<p>(2) The need to search for, collect, and appropriately examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records that are demanded in a single request.</p>
<p>(3) The need for consultation, which shall be conducted with all practicable speed, with another agency having substantial interest in the determination of the request or among two or more components of the agency having substantial subject matter interest therein.</p>
<p>(4) The need to compile data, to write programming language or a computer program, or to construct a computer report to extract data.</p>
<p><em>SEC. 2.</em></p>
<p><em> The Legislature finds and declares that Section 1 of this act, which amends Section 7922.535 of the Government Code, furthers, within the meaning of paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution, the purposes of that constitutional section as it relates to the right of public access to the meetings of local public bodies or the writings of local public officials and local agencies. Pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution, the Legislature makes the following findings:</em></p>
<p><em>Due to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and the increased need to work remotely, state and local agencies have had an unavoidable burden placed upon them. Therefore, to accommodate for this, it is necessary to now allow 10 business day for responses to California Public Records Act requests.</em></p>
<p><strong><a href="https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB2788/id/2551639">https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB2788/id/2551639</a></strong></p>
<hr />
<h2><strong> </strong>AB 748: More Public Access to Body Camera Footage Under PRA</h2>
<p>Amendment to California Law Gives Public Agencies More Responsibility to Provide Footage</p>
<p>The California public will have a greater right to access police body camera footage, and any other audio or video recording acquired by any police agency or state prosecution office, under the Public Records Act with the passage of Assembly Bill 748. The law mandates that audio and visual recordings of “critical incidents” resulting in either the discharge of a firearm by law enforcement or in death or great bodily injury to a person from the use of force by law enforcement are to be made publicly available under the PRA within 45 days of the  incident, with limited exceptions. Approved by Gov. Jerry Brown late last month, <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB748">AB 748</a> goes into effect July 1.</p>
<p>Under existing law, the public is entitled to certain information contained within complaints and investigations of crimes, although public agencies may otherwise withhold material that would endanger either the success of an ongoing criminal investigation or the safety of people involved in that investigation. Under AB 748, recordings acquired by law enforcement and prosecutors  must generally be disclosed in response to a PRA request within 45 days of the “critical incident” or the date the public agency reasonably should have known it occurred.</p>
<p>A public agency may delay disclosure of the recording for between 45 days and 1 year during an active criminal or administrative investigation, but only if disclosure would “substantially interfere” with that ongoing investigation. Examples of such interference include endangering a witness’ or confidential source’s safety. After 1 year following the critical incident, a public agency may withhold the audio or visual recording only if the agency demonstrates, by clear and convincing evidence, that disclosure would still substantially interfere with an ongoing investigation. Under AB 748, the public agency is required to reassess the withholding of that recording and notify the PRA requester every 30 days. Any time a public agency withholds a recording on that criteria, the requester must be notified in writing.</p>
<p>Once the specific basis for withholding the recording of a critical incident is resolved, it must be disclosed. However, if a public agency demonstrates that the reasonable expectation of privacy for individuals depicted in the recording outweighs the public’s interest in disclosure, the public agency must use “redaction technology, including blurring or distorting images or audio” to protect those privacy interests prior to that recording’s disclosure. If the public agency demonstrates that the reasonable expectation of privacy cannot be adequately protected by redaction, the public agency may withhold the recording. However, a redacted or unredacted copy of that recording must be made promptly available to any person (or designated representative) whose privacy interest is protected by public nondisclosure. AB 748 does not apply to peace officers employed by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.</p>
<p><strong><a href="https://www.bbklaw.com/news-events/insights/2018/legal-alerts/10/ab-748-more-public-access-to-body-camera-footage-u">https://www.bbklaw.com/news-events/insights/2018/legal-alerts/10/ab-748-more-public-access-to-body-camera-footage-u</a></strong></p>
<hr />
<h2><strong> </strong><strong>Assembly Bill No. 748</strong></h2>
<p>[ Approved by Governor  September 30, 2018. Filed with Secretary of State  September 30, 2018. ]</p>
<p>LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL&#8217;S DIGEST</p>
<p>AB 748, Ting. Peace officers: video and audio recordings: disclosure.</p>
<p>Existing law, the California Public Records Act, requires that public records, as defined, be available to the public for inspection and made promptly available to any person. Existing law makes records of investigations conducted by any state or local police agency exempt from these requirements. Existing law requires specified information regarding the investigation of crimes to be disclosed to the public unless disclosure would endanger the safety of a person involved in an investigation or would endanger the successful completion of the investigation.</p>
<p>This bill would, notwithstanding the above provisions, commencing July 1, 2019, allow a video or audio recording that relates to a critical incident, as defined, to be withheld for 45 calendar days if disclosure would substantially interfere with an active investigation, subject to extensions, as specified. The bill would allow the recording to be withheld if the public interest in withholding video or audio recording clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure because the release of the recording would, based on the facts and circumstances depicted in the recording, violate the reasonable expectation of privacy of a subject depicted in the recording, in which case the bill would allow the recording to be redacted to protect that interest. If the agency demonstrates that the reasonable expectation of privacy of a subject depicted in the recording cannot adequately be protected through redaction, the bill would require that the recording be promptly disclosed to a subject of the recording, his or her parent, guardian, or representative, as applicable, or his or her heir, beneficiary, immediate family member, or authorized legal representative, if deceased.</p>
<p>By requiring local agencies to make these recordings available, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.</p>
<p>The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.</p>
<p>This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.</p>
<h2>THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:</h2>
<h3>SECTION 1.</h3>
<p>Section 6254 of the Government Code, as amended by Section 1 of Chapter 560 of the Statutes of 2017, is amended to read:</p>
<h2>6254.</h2>
<p>Except as provided in Sections 6254.7 and 6254.13, this chapter does not require the disclosure of any of the following records:</p>
<p>(a) Preliminary drafts, notes, or interagency or intra-agency memoranda that are not retained by the public agency in the ordinary course of business, if the public interest in withholding those records clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure.</p>
<p>(b) Records pertaining to pending litigation to which the public agency is a party, or to claims made pursuant to Division 3.6 (commencing with Section 810), until the pending litigation or claim has been finally adjudicated or otherwise settled.</p>
<p>(c) Personnel, medical, or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.</p>
<p>(d) Records contained in or related to any of the following:</p>
<p>(1) Applications filed with any state agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of the issuance of securities or of financial institutions, including, but not limited to, banks, savings and loan associations, industrial loan companies, credit unions, and insurance companies.</p>
<p>(2) Examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of, any state agency referred to in paragraph (1).</p>
<p>(3) Preliminary drafts, notes, or interagency or intra-agency communications prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of, any state agency referred to in paragraph (1).</p>
<p>(4) Information received in confidence by any state agency referred to in paragraph (1).</p>
<p>(e) Geological and geophysical data, plant production data, and similar information relating to utility systems development, or market or crop reports, that are obtained in confidence from any person.</p>
<p>(f) Records of complaints to, or investigations conducted by, or records of intelligence information or security procedures of, the office of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice, the Office of Emergency Services and any state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local agency for correctional, law enforcement, or licensing purposes. However, state and local law enforcement agencies shall disclose the names and addresses of persons involved in, or witnesses other than confidential informants to, the incident, the description of any property involved, the date, time, and location of the incident, all diagrams, statements of the parties involved in the incident, the statements of all witnesses, other than confidential informants, to the victims of an incident, or an authorized representative thereof, an insurance carrier against which a claim has been or might be made, and any person suffering bodily injury or property damage or loss, as the result of the incident caused by arson, burglary, fire, explosion, larceny, robbery, carjacking, vandalism, vehicle theft, or a crime as defined by subdivision (b) of Section 13951, unless the disclosure would endanger the safety of a witness or other person involved in the investigation, or unless disclosure would endanger the successful completion of the investigation or a related investigation. However, this subdivision does not require the disclosure of that portion of those investigative files that reflects the analysis or conclusions of the investigating officer.</p>
<p>Customer lists provided to a state or local police agency by an alarm or security company at the request of the agency shall be construed to be records subject to this subdivision.</p>
<p>Notwithstanding any other provision of this subdivision, state and local law enforcement agencies shall make public the following information, except to the extent that disclosure of a particular item of information would endanger the safety of a person involved in an investigation or would endanger the successful completion of the investigation or a related investigation:</p>
<p>(1) The full name and occupation of every individual arrested by the agency, the individual’s physical description including date of birth, color of eyes and hair, sex, height and weight, the time and date of arrest, the time and date of booking, the location of the arrest, the factual circumstances surrounding the arrest, the amount of bail set, the time and manner of release or the location where the individual is currently being held, and all charges the individual is being held upon, including any outstanding warrants from other jurisdictions and parole or probation holds.</p>
<p>(2) (A) Subject to the restrictions imposed by Section 841.5 of the Penal Code, the time, substance, and location of all complaints or requests for assistance received by the agency and the time and nature of the response thereto, including, to the extent the information regarding crimes alleged or committed or any other incident investigated is recorded, the time, date, and location of occurrence, the time and date of the report, the name and age of the victim, the factual circumstances surrounding the crime or incident, and a general description of any injuries, property, or weapons involved. The name of a victim of any crime defined by Section 220, 261, 261.5, 262, 264, 264.1, 265, 266, 266a, 266b, 266c, 266e, 266f, 266j, 267, 269, 273a, 273d, 273.5, 285, 286, 288, 288a, 288.2, 288.3, 288.4, 288.5, 288.7, 289, 422.6, 422.7, 422.75, 646.9, or 647.6 of the Penal Code may be withheld at the victim’s request, or at the request of the victim’s parent or guardian if the victim is a minor. When a person is the victim of more than one crime, information disclosing that the person is a victim of a crime defined in any of the sections of the Penal Code set forth in this subdivision may be deleted at the request of the victim, or the victim’s parent or guardian if the victim is a minor, in making the report of the crime, or of any crime or incident accompanying the crime, available to the public in compliance with the requirements of this paragraph.</p>
<p>(B) Subject to the restrictions imposed by Section 841.5 of the Penal Code, the names and images of a victim of human trafficking, as defined in Section 236.1 of the Penal Code, and of that victim’s immediate family, other than a family member who is charged with a criminal offense arising from the same incident, may be withheld at the victim’s request until the investigation or any subsequent prosecution is complete. For purposes of this subdivision, “immediate family” shall have the same meaning as that provided in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of Section 422.4 of the Penal Code.</p>
<p>(3) Subject to the restrictions of Section 841.5 of the Penal Code and this subdivision, the current address of every individual arrested by the agency and the current address of the victim of a crime, if the requester declares under penalty of perjury that the request is made for a scholarly, journalistic, political, or governmental purpose, or that the request is made for investigation purposes by a licensed private investigator as described in Chapter 11.3 (commencing with Section 7512) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code. However, the address of the victim of any crime defined by Section 220, 236.1, 261, 261.5, 262, 264, 264.1, 265, 266, 266a, 266b, 266c, 266e, 266f, 266j, 267, 269, 273a, 273d, 273.5, 285, 286, 288, 288a, 288.2, 288.3, 288.4, 288.5, 288.7, 289, 422.6, 422.7, 422.75, 646.9, or 647.6 of the Penal Code shall remain confidential. Address information obtained pursuant to this paragraph shall not be used directly or indirectly, or furnished to another, to sell a product or service to any individual or group of individuals, and the requester shall execute a declaration to that effect under penalty of perjury. This paragraph shall not be construed to prohibit or limit a scholarly, journalistic, political, or government use of address information obtained pursuant to this paragraph.</p>
<p>(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subdivision, commencing July 1, 2019, a video or audio recording that relates to a critical incident, as defined in subparagraph (C), may be withheld only as follows:</p>
<p>(A) (i) During an active criminal or administrative investigation, disclosure of a recording related to a critical incident may be delayed for no longer than 45 calendar days after the date the agency knew or reasonably should have known about the incident, if, based on the facts and circumstances depicted in the recording, disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation, such as by endangering the safety of a witness or a confidential source. If an agency delays disclosure pursuant to this paragraph, the agency shall provide in writing to the requester the specific basis for the agency’s determination that disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation and the estimated date for disclosure.</p>
<p>(ii) After 45 days from the date the agency knew or reasonably should have known about the incident, and up to one year from that date, the agency may continue to delay disclosure of a recording if the agency demonstrates that disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation. After one year from the date the agency knew or reasonably should have known about the incident, the agency may continue to delay disclosure of a recording only if the agency demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation. If an agency delays disclosure pursuant to this clause, the agency shall promptly provide in writing to the requester the specific basis for the agency’s determination that the interest in preventing interference with an active investigation outweighs the public interest in disclosure and provide the estimated date for the disclosure. The agency shall reassess withholding and notify the requester every 30 days. A recording withheld by the agency shall be disclosed promptly when the specific basis for withholding is resolved.</p>
<p>(B) (i) If the agency demonstrates, on the facts of the particular case, that the public interest in withholding a video or audio recording clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure because the release of the recording would, based on the facts and circumstances depicted in the recording, violate the reasonable expectation of privacy of a subject depicted in the recording, the agency shall provide in writing to the requester the specific basis for the expectation of privacy and the public interest served by withholding the recording and may use redaction technology, including blurring or distorting images or audio, to obscure those specific portions of the recording that protect that interest. However, the redaction shall not interfere with the viewer’s ability to fully, completely, and accurately comprehend the events captured in the recording and the recording shall not otherwise be edited or altered.</p>
<p>(ii) Except as provided in clause (iii), if the agency demonstrates that the reasonable expectation of privacy of a subject depicted in the recording cannot adequately be protected through redaction as described in clause (i) and that interest outweighs the public interest in disclosure, the agency may withhold the recording from the public, except that the recording, either redacted as provided in clause (i) or unredacted, shall be disclosed promptly, upon request, to any of the following:</p>
<p>(I) The subject of the recording whose privacy is to be protected, or his or her authorized representative.</p>
<p>(II) If the subject is a minor, the parent or legal guardian of the subject whose privacy is to be protected.</p>
<p>(III) If the subject whose privacy is to be protected is deceased, an heir, beneficiary, designated immediate family member, or authorized legal representative of the deceased subject whose privacy is to be protected.</p>
<p>(iii) If disclosure pursuant to clause (ii) would substantially interfere with an active criminal or administrative investigation, the agency shall provide in writing to the requester the specific basis for the agency’s determination that disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation, and provide the video or audio recording. Thereafter, the recording may be withheld by the agency for 45 calendar days, subject to extensions as set forth in clause (ii) of subparagraph (A).</p>
<p>(C) For purposes of this paragraph, a video or audio recording relates to a critical incident if it depicts any of the following incidents:</p>
<p>(i) An incident involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer.</p>
<p>(ii) An incident in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death or in great bodily injury.</p>
<p>(D) An agency may provide greater public access to video or audio recordings than the minimum standards set forth in this paragraph.</p>
<p>(E) This paragraph does not alter, limit, or negate any other rights, remedies, or obligations with respect to public records regarding an incident other than a critical incident as described in subparagraph (C).</p>
<p>(F) For purposes of this paragraph, a peace officer does not include any peace officer employed by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.</p>
<p>(g) Test questions, scoring keys, and other examination data used to administer a licensing examination, examination for employment, or academic examination, except as provided for in Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 99150) of Part 65 of Division 14 of Title 3 of the Education Code.</p>
<p>(h) The contents of real estate appraisals or engineering or feasibility estimates and evaluations made for or by the state or local agency relative to the acquisition of property, or to prospective public supply and construction contracts, until all of the property has been acquired or all of the contract agreement obtained. However, the law of eminent domain shall not be affected by this provision.</p>
<p>(i) Information required from any taxpayer in connection with the collection of local taxes that is received in confidence and the disclosure of the information to other persons would result in unfair competitive disadvantage to the person supplying the information.</p>
<p>(j) Library circulation records kept for the purpose of identifying the borrower of items available in libraries, and library and museum materials made or acquired and presented solely for reference or exhibition purposes. The exemption in this subdivision shall not apply to records of fines imposed on the borrowers.</p>
<p>(k) Records, the disclosure of which is exempted or prohibited pursuant to federal or state law, including, but not limited to, provisions of the Evidence Code relating to privilege.</p>
<p>(l) Correspondence of and to the Governor or employees of the Governor’s office or in the custody of or maintained by the Governor’s Legal Affairs Secretary. However, public records shall not be transferred to the custody of the Governor’s Legal Affairs Secretary to evade the disclosure provisions of this chapter.</p>
<p>(m) In the custody of or maintained by the Legislative Counsel, except those records in the public database maintained by the Legislative Counsel that are described in Section 10248.</p>
<p>(n) Statements of personal worth or personal financial data required by a licensing agency and filed by an applicant with the licensing agency to establish his or her personal qualification for the license, certificate, or permit applied for.</p>
<p>(o) Financial data contained in applications for financing under Division 27 (commencing with Section 44500) of the Health and Safety Code, if an authorized officer of the California Pollution Control Financing Authority determines that disclosure of the financial data would be competitively injurious to the applicant and the data is required in order to obtain guarantees from the United States Small Business Administration. The California Pollution Control Financing Authority shall adopt rules for review of individual requests for confidentiality under this section and for making available to the public those portions of an application that are subject to disclosure under this chapter.</p>
<p>(p) (1)  Records of state agencies related to activities governed by Chapter 10.3 (commencing with Section 3512), Chapter 10.5 (commencing with Section 3525), and Chapter 12 (commencing with Section 3560) of Division 4, that reveal a state agency’s deliberative processes, impressions, evaluations, opinions, recommendations, meeting minutes, research, work products, theories, or strategy, or that provide instruction, advice, or training to employees who do not have full collective bargaining and representation rights under these chapters. This paragraph shall not be construed to limit the disclosure duties of a state agency with respect to any other records relating to the activities governed by the employee relations acts referred to in this paragraph.</p>
<p>(2) Records of local agencies related to activities governed by Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 3500) of Division 4, that reveal a local agency’s deliberative processes, impressions, evaluations, opinions, recommendations, meeting minutes, research, work products, theories, or strategy, or that provide instruction, advice, or training to employees who do not have full collective bargaining and representation rights under that chapter. This paragraph shall not be construed to limit the disclosure duties of a local agency with respect to any other records relating to the activities governed by the employee relations act referred to in this paragraph.</p>
<p>(q) (1) Records of state agencies related to activities governed by Article 2.6 (commencing with Section 14081), Article 2.8 (commencing with Section 14087.5), and Article 2.91 (commencing with Section 14089) of Chapter 7 of Part 3 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, that reveal the special negotiator’s deliberative processes, discussions, communications, or any other portion of the negotiations with providers of health care services, impressions, opinions, recommendations, meeting minutes, research, work product, theories, or strategy, or that provide instruction, advice, or training to employees.</p>
<p>(2) Except for the portion of a contract containing the rates of payment, contracts for inpatient services entered into pursuant to these articles, on or after April 1, 1984, shall be open to inspection one year after they are fully executed. If a contract for inpatient services that is entered into prior to April 1, 1984, is amended on or after April 1, 1984, the amendment, except for any portion containing the rates of payment, shall be open to inspection one year after it is fully executed. If the California Medical Assistance Commission enters into contracts with health care providers for other than inpatient hospital services, those contracts shall be open to inspection one year after they are fully executed.</p>
<p>(3) Three years after a contract or amendment is open to inspection under this subdivision, the portion of the contract or amendment containing the rates of payment shall be open to inspection.</p>
<p>(4) Notwithstanding any other law, the entire contract or amendment shall be open to inspection by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee and the Legislative Analyst’s Office. The committee and that office shall maintain the confidentiality of the contracts and amendments until the time a contract or amendment is fully open to inspection by the public.</p>
<p>(r) Records of Native American graves, cemeteries, and sacred places and records of Native American places, features, and objects described in Sections 5097.9 and 5097.993 of the Public Resources Code maintained by, or in the possession of, the Native American Heritage Commission, another state agency, or a local agency.</p>
<p>(s) A final accreditation report of the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals that has been transmitted to the State Department of Health Care Services pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 1282 of the Health and Safety Code.</p>
<p>(t) Records of a local hospital district, formed pursuant to Division 23 (commencing with Section 32000) of the Health and Safety Code, or the records of a municipal hospital, formed pursuant to Article 7 (commencing with Section 37600) or Article 8 (commencing with Section 37650) of Chapter 5 of Part 2 of Division 3 of Title 4 of this code, that relate to any contract with an insurer or nonprofit hospital service plan for inpatient or outpatient services for alternative rates pursuant to Section 10133 of the Insurance Code. However, the record shall be open to inspection within one year after the contract is fully executed.</p>
<p>(u) (1) Information contained in applications for licenses to carry firearms issued pursuant to Section 26150, 26155, 26170, or 26215 of the Penal Code by the sheriff of a county or the chief or other head of a municipal police department that indicates when or where the applicant is vulnerable to attack or that concerns the applicant’s medical or psychological history or that of members of his or her family.</p>
<p>(2) The home address and telephone number of prosecutors, public defenders, peace officers, judges, court commissioners, and magistrates that are set forth in applications for licenses to carry firearms issued pursuant to Section 26150, 26155, 26170, or 26215 of the Penal Code by the sheriff of a county or the chief or other head of a municipal police department.</p>
<p>(3) The home address and telephone number of prosecutors, public defenders, peace officers, judges, court commissioners, and magistrates that are set forth in licenses to carry firearms issued pursuant to Section 26150, 26155, 26170, or 26215 of the Penal Code by the sheriff of a county or the chief or other head of a municipal police department.</p>
<p>(v) (1) Records of the Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board and the State Department of Health Care Services related to activities governed by former Part 6.3 (commencing with Section 12695), former Part 6.5 (commencing with Section 12700), Part 6.6 (commencing with Section 12739.5), or Part 6.7 (commencing with Section 12739.70) of Division 2 of the Insurance Code, or Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 15810) or Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 15870) of Part 3.3 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, and that reveal any of the following:</p>
<p>(A) The deliberative processes, discussions, communications, or any other portion of the negotiations with entities contracting or seeking to contract with the board or the department, entities with which the board or the department is considering a contract, or entities with which the board or department is considering or enters into any other arrangement under which the board or the department provides, receives, or arranges services or reimbursement.</p>
<p>(B) The impressions, opinions, recommendations, meeting minutes, research, work product, theories, or strategy of the board or its staff or the department or its staff, or records that provide instructions, advice, or training to their employees.</p>
<p>(2) (A) Except for the portion of a contract that contains the rates of payment, contracts entered into pursuant to former Part 6.3 (commencing with Section 12695), former Part 6.5 (commencing with Section 12700), Part 6.6 (commencing with Section 12739.5), or Part 6.7 (commencing with Section 12739.70) of Division 2 of the Insurance Code, or Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 15810) or Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 15870) of Part 3.3 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, on or after July 1, 1991, shall be open to inspection one year after their effective dates.</p>
<p>(B) If a contract that is entered into prior to July 1, 1991, is amended on or after July 1, 1991, the amendment, except for any portion containing the rates of payment, shall be open to inspection one year after the effective date of the amendment.</p>
<p>(3) Three years after a contract or amendment is open to inspection pursuant to this subdivision, the portion of the contract or amendment containing the rates of payment shall be open to inspection.</p>
<p>(4) Notwithstanding any other law, the entire contract or amendments to a contract shall be open to inspection by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. The committee shall maintain the confidentiality of the contracts and amendments thereto, until the contracts or amendments to the contracts are open to inspection pursuant to paragraph (3).</p>
<p>(w) (1) Records of the Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board related to activities governed by Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 10700) of Part 2 of Division 2 of the Insurance Code, and that reveal the deliberative processes, discussions, communications, or any other portion of the negotiations with health plans, or the impressions, opinions, recommendations, meeting minutes, research, work product, theories, or strategy of the board or its staff, or records that provide instructions, advice, or training to employees.</p>
<p>(2) Except for the portion of a contract that contains the rates of payment, contracts for health coverage entered into pursuant to Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 10700) of Part 2 of Division 2 of the Insurance Code, on or after January 1, 1993, shall be open to inspection one year after they have been fully executed.</p>
<p>(3) Notwithstanding any other law, the entire contract or amendments to a contract shall be open to inspection by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. The committee shall maintain the confidentiality of the contracts and amendments thereto, until the contracts or amendments to the contracts are open to inspection pursuant to paragraph (2).</p>
<p>(x) Financial data contained in applications for registration, or registration renewal, as a service contractor filed with the Director of Consumer Affairs pursuant to Chapter 20 (commencing with Section 9800) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code, for the purpose of establishing the service contractor’s net worth, or financial data regarding the funded accounts held in escrow for service contracts held in force in this state by a service contractor.</p>
<p>(y) (1) Records of the Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board and the State Department of Health Care Services related to activities governed by Part 6.2 (commencing with Section 12693) or former Part 6.4 (commencing with Section 12699.50) of Division 2 of the Insurance Code or Sections 14005.26 and 14005.27 of, or Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 15850) of Part 3.3 of Division 9 of, the Welfare and Institutions Code, if the records reveal any of the following:</p>
<p>(A) The deliberative processes, discussions, communications, or any other portion of the negotiations with entities contracting or seeking to contract with the board or the department, entities with which the board or department is considering a contract, or entities with which the board or department is considering or enters into any other arrangement under which the board or department provides, receives, or arranges services or reimbursement.</p>
<p>(B) The impressions, opinions, recommendations, meeting minutes, research, work product, theories, or strategy of the board or its staff, or the department or its staff, or records that provide instructions, advice, or training to employees.</p>
<p>(2) (A) Except for the portion of a contract that contains the rates of payment, contracts entered into pursuant to Part 6.2 (commencing with Section 12693) or former Part 6.4 (commencing with Section 12699.50) of Division 2 of the Insurance Code, on or after January 1, 1998, or Sections 14005.26 and 14005.27 of, or Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 15850) of Part 3.3 of Division 9 of, the Welfare and Institutions Code shall be open to inspection one year after their effective dates.</p>
<p>(B) If a contract entered into pursuant to Part 6.2 (commencing with Section 12693) or former Part 6.4 (commencing with Section 12699.50) of Division 2 of the Insurance Code or Sections 14005.26 and 14005.27 of, or Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 15850) of Part 3.3 of Division 9 of, the Welfare and Institutions Code, is amended, the amendment shall be open to inspection one year after the effective date of the amendment.</p>
<p>(3) Three years after a contract or amendment is open to inspection pursuant to this subdivision, the portion of the contract or amendment containing the rates of payment shall be open to inspection.</p>
<p>(4) Notwithstanding any other law, the entire contract or amendments to a contract shall be open to inspection by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. The committee shall maintain the confidentiality of the contracts and amendments thereto until the contract or amendments to a contract are open to inspection pursuant to paragraph (2) or (3).</p>
<p>(5) The exemption from disclosure provided pursuant to this subdivision for the contracts, deliberative processes, discussions, communications, negotiations, impressions, opinions, recommendations, meeting minutes, research, work product, theories, or strategy of the board or its staff, or the department or its staff, shall also apply to the contracts, deliberative processes, discussions, communications, negotiations, impressions, opinions, recommendations, meeting minutes, research, work product, theories, or strategy of applicants pursuant to Part 6.4 (commencing with Section 12699.50) of Division 2 of the Insurance Code or Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 15850) of Part 3.3 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.</p>
<p>(z) Records obtained pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (f) of Section 2891.1 of the Public Utilities Code.</p>
<p>(aa) A document prepared by or for a state or local agency that assesses its vulnerability to terrorist attack or other criminal acts intended to disrupt the public agency’s operations and that is for distribution or consideration in a closed session.</p>
<p>(ab) Critical infrastructure information, as defined in Section 131(3) of Title 6 of the United States Code, that is voluntarily submitted to the Office of Emergency Services for use by that office, including the identity of the person who or entity that voluntarily submitted the information. As used in this subdivision, “voluntarily submitted” means submitted in the absence of the office exercising any legal authority to compel access to or submission of critical infrastructure information. This subdivision shall not affect the status of information in the possession of any other state or local governmental agency.</p>
<p>(ac) All information provided to the Secretary of State by a person for the purpose of registration in the Advance Health Care Directive Registry, except that those records shall be released at the request of a health care provider, a public guardian, or the registrant’s legal representative.</p>
<p>(ad) The following records of the State Compensation Insurance Fund:</p>
<p>(1) Records related to claims pursuant to Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 3200) of Division 4 of the Labor Code, to the extent that confidential medical information or other individually identifiable information would be disclosed.</p>
<p>(2) Records related to the discussions, communications, or any other portion of the negotiations with entities contracting or seeking to contract with the fund, and any related deliberations.</p>
<p>(3) Records related to the impressions, opinions, recommendations, meeting minutes of meetings or sessions that are lawfully closed to the public, research, work product, theories, or strategy of the fund or its staff, on the development of rates, contracting strategy, underwriting, or competitive strategy pursuant to the powers granted to the fund in Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 11770) of Part 3 of Division 2 of the Insurance Code.</p>
<p>(4) Records obtained to provide workers’ compensation insurance under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 11770) of Part 3 of Division 2 of the Insurance Code, including, but not limited to, any medical claims information, policyholder information provided that nothing in this paragraph shall be interpreted to prevent an insurance agent or broker from obtaining proprietary information or other information authorized by law to be obtained by the agent or broker, and information on rates, pricing, and claims handling received from brokers.</p>
<p>(5) (A) Records that are trade secrets pursuant to Section 6276.44, or Article 11 (commencing with Section 1060) of Chapter 4 of Division 8 of the Evidence Code, including, without limitation, instructions, advice, or training provided by the State Compensation Insurance Fund to its board members, officers, and employees regarding the fund’s special investigation unit, internal audit unit, and informational security, marketing, rating, pricing, underwriting, claims handling, audits, and collections.</p>
<p>(B) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), the portions of records containing trade secrets shall be available for review by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, California State Auditor’s Office, Division of Workers’ Compensation, and the Department of Insurance to ensure compliance with applicable law.</p>
<p>(6) (A) Internal audits containing proprietary information and the following records that are related to an internal audit:</p>
<p>(i) Personal papers and correspondence of any person providing assistance to the fund when that person has requested in writing that his or her papers and correspondence be kept private and confidential. Those papers and correspondence shall become public records if the written request is withdrawn, or upon order of the fund.</p>
<p>(ii) Papers, correspondence, memoranda, or any substantive information pertaining to any audit not completed or an internal audit that contains proprietary information.</p>
<p>(B) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), the portions of records containing proprietary information, or any information specified in subparagraph (A) shall be available for review by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, California State Auditor’s Office, Division of Workers’ Compensation, and the Department of Insurance to ensure compliance with applicable law.</p>
<p>(7) (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (C), contracts entered into pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 11770) of Part 3 of Division 2 of the Insurance Code shall be open to inspection one year after the contract has been fully executed.</p>
<p>(B) If a contract entered into pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 11770) of Part 3 of Division 2 of the Insurance Code is amended, the amendment shall be open to inspection one year after the amendment has been fully executed.</p>
<p>(C) Three years after a contract or amendment is open to inspection pursuant to this subdivision, the portion of the contract or amendment containing the rates of payment shall be open to inspection.</p>
<p>(D) Notwithstanding any other law, the entire contract or amendments to a contract shall be open to inspection by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. The committee shall maintain the confidentiality of the contracts and amendments thereto until the contract or amendments to a contract are open to inspection pursuant to this paragraph.</p>
<p>(E) This paragraph is not intended to apply to documents related to contracts with public entities that are not otherwise expressly confidential as to that public entity.</p>
<p>(F) For purposes of this paragraph, “fully executed” means the point in time when all of the necessary parties to the contract have signed the contract.</p>
<p>This section does not prevent any agency from opening its records concerning the administration of the agency to public inspection, unless disclosure is otherwise prohibited by law.</p>
<p>This section does not prevent any health facility from disclosing to a certified bargaining agent relevant financing information pursuant to Section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. Sec. 158).\</p>
<p>SEC. 2.</p>
<p>No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district under this act would result from a legislative mandate that is within the scope of paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution.</p>
<hr />
<h2><strong>California Constitution Article I &#8211; Declaration of Rights</strong></h2>
<p>Section 3.</p>
<p><strong>Universal Citation: </strong><a href="https://law.justia.com/citations.html">CA Constitution art I § 3</a></p>
<p>SEC. 3.</p>
<p>(a) The people have the right to instruct their representatives, petition government for redress of grievances, and assemble freely to consult for the common good.</p>
<p>(b) (1) The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business, and, therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny.</p>
<p>(2) A statute, court rule, or other authority, including those in effect on the effective date of this subdivision, shall be broadly construed if it furthers the people’s right of access, and narrowly construed if it limits the right of access. A statute, court rule, or other authority adopted after the effective date of this subdivision that limits the right of access shall be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.</p>
<p>(3) Nothing in this subdivision supersedes or modifies the right of privacy guaranteed by Section 1 or affects the construction of any statute, court rule, or other authority to the extent that it protects that right to privacy, including any statutory procedures governing discovery or disclosure of information concerning the official performance or professional qualifications of a peace officer.</p>
<p>(4) Nothing in this subdivision supersedes or modifies any provision of this Constitution, including the guarantees that a person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or denied equal protection of the laws, as provided in Section 7.</p>
<p>(5) This subdivision does not repeal or nullify, expressly or by implication, any constitutional or statutory exception to the right of access to public records or meetings of public bodies that is in effect on the effective date of this subdivision, including, but not limited to, any statute protecting the confidentiality of law enforcement and prosecution records.</p>
<p>(6) Nothing in this subdivision repeals, nullifies, supersedes, or modifies protections for the confidentiality of proceedings and records of the Legislature, the Members of the Legislature, and its employees, committees, and caucuses provided by Section 7 of Article IV, state law, or legislative rules adopted in furtherance of those provisions; nor does it affect the scope of permitted discovery in judicial or administrative proceedings regarding deliberations of the Legislature, the Members of the Legislature, and its employees, committees, and caucuses.</p>
<p>(7) In order to ensure public access to the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies, as specified in paragraph (1), each local agency is hereby required to comply with the California Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code) and the Ralph M. Brown Act (Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950) of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code), and with any subsequent statutory enactment amending either act, enacting a successor act, or amending any successor act that contains findings demonstrating that the statutory enactment furthers the purposes of this section.</p>
<p><em>(Sec. 3 amended June 3, 2014, by Prop. 42. Res.Ch. 123, 2013.)</em></p>
<p><a href="https://law.justia.com/constitution/california/article-i/section-3/#:~:text=SEC.,consult%20for%20the%20common%20good">https://law.justia.com/constitution/california/article-i/section-3/#:~:text=SEC.,consult%20for%20the%20common%20good</a>.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: #ff0000;"><strong>Obtaining Police Records by State</strong></span></h2>
<p><iframe title="Obtaining Police Records by State" src="https://goodshepherdmedia.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/POLICE.pdf" width="1400" height="1100"></iframe></p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>California Cops Can No Longer Pass the Cost of Digital Redaction onto Public Records Requesters</title>
		<link>https://goodshepherdmedia.net/california-cops-can-no-longer-pass-the-cost-of-digital-redaction-onto-public-records-requesters/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[The Truth News]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 May 2023 08:05:04 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Corruption Over the Years]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Digital]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Discovery]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal News The Motivation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[LHPD - La Habra PD]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Motions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Orange County DA Office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Self Help]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Top Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tort]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Zee Truthful News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[👮🚨Wrongful💀Death/Abuse Caselaw]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[🚨👮Cops to ➡️Criminals⚖️💩]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bodycam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bodycam video]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[getting bodycam footage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Police BodyCam]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://goodshepherdmedia.net/?p=13806</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[California Cops Can No Longer Pass the Cost of Digital Redaction onto Public Records Requesters At a dark time when the possibility of police accountability seems especially bleak, there is a new glimmer of light courtesy of the California Supreme Court. Under a new ruling, government agencies cannot pass the cost of redacting police body-camera [&#8230;]]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<h1 style="text-align: center;">California Cops Can No Longer Pass the Cost of Digital Redaction onto Public Records Requesters</h1>
<p>At a dark time when the possibility of police accountability seems especially bleak, there is a new glimmer of light courtesy of the California Supreme Court. Under a new ruling, government agencies cannot pass the cost of redacting police body-camera footage and other digital public records onto the members of the public who requested them under the California Public Records Act (CPRA).</p>
<p>The case, <a href="https://www.eff.org/document/nlg-v-hayward-opinion"><i>National Lawyers Guild vs. Hayward</i> </a>was brought by civil rights groups against the City of Hayward after they filed requests for police body-camera footage related to protests on UC Berkeley’s campus following the deaths of Eric Garner and Michael Brown. Hayward Police agreed to release the footage, but not before assessing nearly $3,000 for redacting the footage and editing that they claimed NLG needed to pay before they’d release the video.</p>
<p>The California Supreme Court sided with NLG, as well as the long list of transparency advocates and news organizations that filed briefs in the case. The court ruled that:</p>
<p>“Just as agencies cannot recover the costs of searching through a filing cabinet for paper records, they cannot recover comparable costs for electronic records. Nor, for similar reasons, does ‘extraction’ cover the cost of redacting exempt data from otherwise producible electronic records.”</p>
<p>The court further acknowledged that such charges “could well prove prohibitively expensive for some requesters, barring them from accessing records altogether.”</p>
<p>This is an unqualified victory for government transparency. So what does this mean in practical terms for public records requesters? As people march against police violence across the Golden State, many members of the press and non-profits will likely use the CPRA to obtain evidence of police breaking the law or otherwise violating people’s civil rights.</p>
<p>These videos can prove to be invaluable records of police activity and misconduct, though they can also capture individuals suffering medical emergencies, violence, and other moments of distress. The CPRA attempts to balance these and other interests by allowing public agencies to redact personally identifying details and other information while still requiring that the videos be made public.</p>
<p>So when making a request for body-camera footage, the first thing requesters should know is that sometimes the individuals handling public records requests are not keeping up with legal decisions, particularly one issued last week. To preempt these misinterpretations of the law, requesters could consider including a line in their letters that says something like:</p>
<blockquote><p>“Pursuant to <a href="https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S252445.PDF"><i>NLG vs. Hayward</i></a>, S252445 (May 28, 2020), government agencies may not charge requesters for the cost of redacting or editing body-worn camera footage.”</p></blockquote>
<p>More broadly, the decision’s reasoning doesn’t just apply to body-camera footage, but all digital records. This is because the court’s ruling recognizes that because the CPRA already prohibits agencies from charging requesters for redacting non-digital records, that same prohibition applies to digital records.</p>
<p>So, in requests for electronic information, such as emails or datasets, you could include the line:</p>
<blockquote><p>“Pursuant to <i>NLG vs. Hayward</i>, S252445 (May 28, 2020), government agencies may not charge requesters for the cost of redacting digital records.”</p></blockquote>
<p>Additionally, people filing CPRA requests for digital records should know that the law does permit agencies to charge for the costs of duplicating records, though in the case of digital records that cost should be no more than the price of media the copy is written to &#8211; in NLG’s case, it was $1 for a USB memory stick.</p>
<p>The CPRA also permits agencies, in certain narrow circumstances, to charge for its staff’s time spent programming or extracting data to respond to a public records request. The good news is that the California Supreme Court’s decision last week significantly narrowed the circumstances under which an agency can claim these costs and pass them along to requesters.</p>
<p>According to the court, data “extraction” under the CPRA “refers to a particular technical process—a process of retrieving data from government data stores—when this process is” required to produce a record that can be released. The court said the provision would permit charges when, for example, a request for demographic data of state employees requires an agency to pull that data from a larger human resources database. But “extraction” does not cover the time spent searching for responsive records, such as when an official has to search through email correspondence or a physical file cabinet.</p>
<p>Requesters should thus be prepared to push back on any agency claims that seek to assess charges for merely searching for responsive records. And requesters should also be on the lookout for exorbitant charges associated with data “extraction” even when the CPRA permits it, as such techniques in practice can amount to little more than a database query or formula. <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/06/california-cops-can-no-longer-pass-cost-digital-redaction-public-records" target="_blank" rel="noopener">source</a></p>
<hr />
<h1>California Supreme Court: Agencies May No Longer Charge For Costs Of Redacting Body Cam Footage or Other Electronic Public Records</h1>
<p>In a unanimous decision issued May 28, 2020, the California Supreme Court ruled that the California Public Records Act (“CPRA”) does not permit public agencies to recover from the requesting party the cost of redacting information from electronic records in response to a request for electronically stored public records. This decision reversed a prior decision by the California Court of Appeal, which held that the cost of such redactions could be charged to the requesting party.</p>
<p>In this case, the San Francisco Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild (“NLG”) requested from the City of Hayward (“City”) electronic records related to a demonstration for which the City’s Police Department provided security.  The NLG initially requested 11 categories of records, including electronic and paper records.  The NLG made a second request for video recordings of police body camera footage from 24 named officers and additional unnamed officers.</p>
<p>The City complied with the NLG’s records requests, producing more than six hours of body camera footage. City staff spent approximately 170 hours reviewing and redacting portions of the video that contained sensitive information exempt from disclosure under the CPRA. The task required the City to research and acquire specialized editing software to edit and redact the video recordings. The City sought reimbursement for $2,939.58 in costs incurred in copying and redacting the videos, including City staff time spent reviewing, editing, and redacting exempt portions of the requested video recordings and costs incurred in copying the videos. In response to the NLG’s second request for videos, the City indicated that it would charge NLG $308.89 to reimburse the City for its production costs.</p>
<p>The NLG filed a legal action seeking reimbursement for its payment of $2,939.58, and access to the second set of its requested videos for no more than the City’s direct production costs.  The parties agreed that the video recordings that the NLG requested were subject to disclosure but disputed which party should bear the costs incurred in connection with the City’s production of these records.</p>
<p>The trial court granted the NLG’s request. The City appealed to the Court of Appeal, which reversed the trial court’s decision.  Interpreting Section 6253.9 of the CPRA, which requires a requester to bear the cost of “programming and computer services necessary to produce a copy of the record<i> </i>when…[t]he ‘request would require data compilation, extraction, or programming,’” the Court of Appeal held that the City was entitled to recover redaction costs as a form as an “extraction” of data necessary to produce the record.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court granted review, and on May 28, 2020 it unanimously reversed the Court of Appeal’s decision. The Court noted that in the computing field, the term “data extraction” is generally used refer to the process of retrieving specific data needed for a particular use from a larger database. The Court also looked to the legislative intent behind Section 6253.9, and concluded that the Legislature likely did not intend to create a distinction between redaction costs for electronic and non-electronic records and allow agencies to charge for charge for time spent redacting an electronic version of a document when it cannot charge for time spent redacting a hard copy of the very same document.</p>
<p>The Court did not provide a clear rule for determining what is or is not reimbursable data “extraction.” But the Court did conclude that the legislative history indicated the term was meant to cover retrieving disclosable information from a government database that cannot be disclosed as a whole, such as “pulling demographic data for all state agency employees from a human resources database and producing the relevant data in a spreadsheet.”</p>
<p>The Court also recognized that if agencies cannot seek reimbursement for redaction costs, that places an additional burden on public agencies, and the Court noted various alternative solutions available under the CPRA.  For example, the Court noted that agencies are only required to disclose nonexempt portions of records if they are “reasonably segregable” from exempt portions. (Gov. Code § 6253(a).)  The Court also noted that agencies can withhold records if “the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record,” which may encompass requests that place undue burdens on an agency. (Gov. Code § 6255(a); <i>American Civil Liberties Union Foundation v. Deukmejian</i> (1982) 32 Cal.3d 440, 453.)  Finally, the Court noted that the CPRA allows agencies to suggest ways requesters can reduce practical barriers to producing the records, such as asking the requesting party to narrow its request.</p>
<p>In light of the Court’s decision, it is clear that agencies can no longer charge CPRA requestors for the costs associated with redacting video, audio and similar electronic records.  However, there are other strategies that can be implored to reduce the costs associated with complying with CPRA requests, and agencies and their legal counsel should become familiar with them.  Liebert Cassidy Whitmore has significant experience in this area and can assist agencies as needed. <a href="https://www.lcwlegal.com/news/california-supreme-court-agencies-may-no-longer-charge-for-costs-of-redacting-body-cam-footage-or-other-electronic-public-records/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">source</a></p>
<p><i>National Lawyers Guild, San Francisco Bay Area Chapter v. City of Hayward, et al.,</i> Case no. S252445 (May 28, 2020).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
