California Court of Appeals, First District, Fifth Division
Superior
Court of the County of Humboldt, No. JV140252, Christopher G.
Wilson, Judge.
Cyndy
Day-Wilson, City Attorney, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Mary
Blair Angus, County Counsel, for Defendant and Respondent.
Paul
Nicholas Boylan, for Real Party in Interest and Respondent.
Jones,
P.J.
The
issue in this case is whether a video of an arrest captured
by a patrol car’s dashboard camera is a confidential
“personnel record” under Penal Code sections
832.7 or 832.8.[1] On the record before us, the answer is
no. We conclude the juvenile court properly determined the
arrest video is not a personnel record protected by the
Pitchess statutes. (See Pitchess v.
Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531
(Pitchess).) We therefore affirm the court’s
order requiring the City of Eureka (City) to release a
portion of the video to local reporter and real party in
interest, Thadeus Greenson.
FACTUAL
AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Arrest,
Charges, and Internal Affairs Investigation
In
December 2012, Eureka Police Sergeant Adam Laird and other
Eureka police officers arrested H.M. (the minor). Sergeant
Laird chased the minor, who “was pushed to the ground,
fell to the ground, or just gave up and laid on the
ground.” Another police officer arrived “in his
patrol vehicle with its in-car video equipment
activated[.]” The patrol car’s mobile audio video
(MAV) recording system produced several videos of the
arrest.[2] The prosecution filed a Welfare and
Institutions Code section 602 petition against the minor, but
later withdrew it.
A
citizen lodged a complaint regarding the officers’
“handling of the minor” and the Eureka Police
Department conducted an internal affairs investigation. The
prosecution charged Sergeant Laird with misdemeanor assault
by a police officer without lawful necessity (§ 149) and
with making a false report (§ 118.1). Both the
prosecution and defense hired experts to review the evidence
against Sergeant Laird. After reviewing the evidence -
including the arrest video - the experts determined Sergeant
Laird did not use excessive force during the arrest. The
prosecution dismissed the charges against Sergeant Laird in
January 2014.
Greenson’s
Request for Disclosure of the Arrest Video
In July
2013 and January 2014, Greenson wrote articles in two local
newspapers about the arrest and subsequent litigation. In
August 2014, Greenson filed a California Public Records Act
(Gov. Code, § 6250, et seq.) request with the City
seeking disclosure of the arrest video. The City denied the
request, “citing discretionary exemptions for personnel
records and investigative files.”
In
November 2014, Greenson filed a request for disclosure (form
JV-570) of the arrest video pursuant to Welfare and
Institutions Code section 827, which authorizes public
disclosure of confidential juvenile records under limited
circumstances. Greenson averred the video “formed the
basis” for the charges against Sergeant Laird, but the
prosecution “later dismissed the charges with little,
if any, explanation. [Sergeant] Laird’s defense... was
an allegation that he’d been singled out for arrest by
the... Police Department for exercising his First Amendment
free speech rights and that the [police department]
deliberately withheld exculpatory evidence from
prosecutors.” According to Greenson, “the public
has a right to know exactly what happened” during the
minor’s arrest “to evaluate the performance of
both its police officers and prosecutors. The public’s
only avenue to that knowledge, and the only thing that will
allow the public to make that evaluation, is the video [of
the] arrest.”
The
Humboldt County Probation Department (the County) objected,
claiming Greenson failed to demonstrate good cause for
disclosure under Welfare and Institutions Code section 827.
As the County explained, “[p]ublic dissemination of the
video is not necessary to facilitate public scrutiny”
of Sergeant Laird’s conduct because Greenson had
“already obtained court records and other public
documents describing the events depicted by the video and
ha[d] previously published details of the incident.... Under
these circumstances, release of the video would serve only to
prejudice the minor by exposing his image, his actions, and
his juvenile record to widespread public scrutiny.” The
County also noted Greenson had not served the police
department with the disclosure request. The City also urged
the court to deny Greenson’s request. It argued the
video was a police officer “personnel record” and
“[d]isclosure... would require a successful
Pitchess [m]otion, ” which Greenson had not
filed. The City also claimed disclosing the video could be
detrimental to the minor under Welfare and Institutions Code
section 827.
At a
late January 2015 hearing, the court directed Greenson to
serve the police department and the City with the disclosure
request and continued the matter to late February 2015.
Before the February 2015 hearing, Greenson filed a reply
offering additional information about the criminal case
against Sergeant Laird and claiming the case “called
into question” the conduct of the “entire
[police] department.” According to Greenson, the public
had “a right to evaluate the conduct of its officers
and prosecutors” and needed to know why criminal
charges were filed against Sergeant Laird when “experts
determined [his] use of force was justified[.]”
Greenson also argued releasing the arrest video would not
harm the ...