Q: I am writing to see if there is any California case law on the release of dash cam videos and whether they are public record.
I’ve been covering the case of a police officer accused of committing assault on a juvenile under the color of authority . The officer’s defense was that he was singled out for arrest and prosecution because he was unpopular in a dysfunctional police department and that his fellow officers willfully withheld exculpatory evidence from prosecutors. The charges were ultimately dropped. But the arrest was caught on a responding officer’s dash cam.
I’ve asked for the video through CPRA requests to the district attorney’s office and the city and been denied, with both agencies citing the investigatory files exemption. I’m now petitioning the juvenile court to release the record from the arrestee’s file, and through his attorney I understand the juvenile is supporting the video’s disclosure.
I guess I’m just wondering if there’s any precedent for compelling a public agency to release police dash cam video footage.
A: Unfortunately, if the dash cam video was indeed part of a police investigation – either relating to the juvenile or the officer – then the police department can claim an exemption under Government Code 6254(f).
And, even more unfortunately, once a record becomes part of an investigatory file, it is exempt from disclosure forever under the Public Records Act, even after the investigation is over, and regardless of whether there were any charges related to the events captured in the video.
That said, just because a record is exempt from disclosure doesn’t mean the agency is prohibited from releasing that record. The PD, in its discretion, could choose to share the video footage with you and the public. However, it doesn’t sound like this is likely to happen.
That said, given the video was filed with the court in connection with the juvenile’s prosecution, you may be able to get the records through the petition process, which it sounds like you have already initiated (see Cal. Juv. Ct. R. 5.552, outlining the procedure for such petitions, and Request for Disclosure of Juvenile Case File).
As you probably know, juvenile court proceedings are generally closed to the public, except in cases involving certain categories of violent crimes enumerated by statute. Welf. & Inst. Code 676. Even in those instances where the proceedings are open, the court can restrict access to most of the court record (except the charging petition, minutes of the proceeding, orders of adjudication, etc.), although certain people have a statutory right to inspect the court file (e.g., the juvenile, his or her attorney, the juvenile’s parents, etc.). Welf. & Inst. Code 827.
However, Rule 5.552 gives courts the discretion to allow disclosure of records to others who are not designated access by statute, where good cause is shown by the petitioner for such release. Cal. Juv. Ct. R. 5.552(c)(2) (petitioner must “describe in detail the reasons the records are being sought and their relevancy to the proceeding or purpose for which petitioner wishes to inspect or obtain the records.”).
In determining whether to release the records, the court must “balance the interests of the child and other parties to the juvenile court proceedings, the interests of the petitioner, and the interests of the public.” Cal. Juv. Ct. R. 5.552(e)(4). With respect to such petitions, the “juvenile court … is in the best position and statutorily authorized to make the decision of whether and what material should be released.” In re Keisha T., 38 Cal. App. 4th 220, 223 (1995).
Given the juvenile in this instance does not oppose the release of the videotape, and there is great public interest in monitoring how police conduct themselves in situations such as the arrest you describe, it would seem that the balance here would tip in favor of disclosure of the footage.
However, in the end, it will up to the court to decide, and the court does have a great deal of discretion in making this decision. Hopefully the judge in this case is reasonable and will not buy into any arguments the police department makes against disclosure of the videotape (which probably would not be very persuasive).
Beyond this, I cannot think of any other method by which either the police department or the court could be compelled to release the video footage, except perhaps through good old public pressure. I am crossing my fingers that your petition will be granted.
Bryan Cave LLP is general counsel for the First Amendment Coalition and responds to FAC hotline inquiries. In responding to these inquiries, we can give general information regarding open government and speech issues but cannot provide specific legal advice or representation