HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-07-09 Reassessment of Public Records Request DeterminationCity of San Luis Obispo, City Attorney’s Office, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401-3249, 805.781.7140, slocity.org
July 9, 2021
Paula Canny
Law Offices of Paula Canny
Pkcanny@aol.com
RE: Record Request Response to Paula Canny for May 10, 2021 Body Camera Footage
and Accompanying Documents.
Dear Ms. Canny,
The City of San Luis Obispo (“City”) received your request pursuant to the California Public
Records Act delivered via email on June 30, 2021. In accordance with the requirements of
the Act, the City has determined that, while responsive records exist for your request, they
are exempt from disclosure pursuant to Government Code §§ 6254(f), 6255 and Penal
Code §832.7(b) and will not be disclosed at this time. Future disclosure and/or redaction
will be considered in light of the following and the totality of the pending criminal and
administrative investigations surrounding the May 10, 2021 incident.
Pursuant to Government Code § 6254(f)(4)(A), the disclosure of a recording related to a
critical incident during an active criminal or administrative investigation may be delayed for
up to 45 days after the date of the incident if disclosure would substantially interfere with
the investigation. After 45 days, the agency may continue to delay disclosure if such
disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation.
The Sheriff’s Office has indicated that the fragmented disclosure of records and
information at this early stage in the investigation, and separate from the complete context
and investigative records disclosures that likely will be required at the conclusion of the
investigation (subject to privacy concerns and potential redactions), would substantially
interfere with their ongoing criminal investigation. Specifically, premature disclosure of
fragmented pieces of the investigative materials present a significant risk of: undue
influence on potential witnesses; compromised efficiency and effectiveness in the
completion of the investigation by directing investigative resources toward the
identification, duplication, redaction and production of the portions of the investigation
outside the context of the completed investigation; factual mischaracterization or
misunderstanding of partial records separate from the complete investigation; and
misleading the public regarding the complete facts and conclusions of the investigation.
As a separate and independent basis for non-disclosure, and for the same reasons set forth
above, the City asserts that the public’s interest in non-disclosure of the fragmented pieces
of investigatory evidence you request, in isolation from the entirety of the evidence and
investigation, clearly outweighs the public’s interest in disclosure, pursuant to Government
Code Section 6255. The court in Becerra v. Superior Court found that the amendment of
police personnel records statute to deem nonconfidential all agency records relating to an
officer's discharge of a weapon, use of deadly force, misconduct, or dishonesty did not
require disclosure of requested records falling within public interest catchall exemption to
disclosure under California Public Records Act (CPRA). The Legislature declined to expressly
state it intended to override the CPRA catchall exemption, the legislative history of the
amendment was silent as to catchall exemption, and construing the catchall exemption to
apply for police personnel records requests honored the Legislature's intent to balance
competing public interests of privacy and disclosure. Becerra v. Superior Court (App. 1 Dist.
2020) 257 Cal.Rptr.3d 897.
Further, the disclosure of those aspects of the video depicting Detective Benedetti’s death
would constitute an unwarranted invasion of Detective Benedetti’s personal privacy and
the rights of his survivors and heirs, including but not limited to his wife and two young
daughters. Similarly, disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of the privacy
rights of the other victim in this incident, Detective Orozco, as well as those of his family.
While I understand that your clients also have privacy interests implicated here, and
apparently wish to waive those privacy interests in favor of disclosure of video depicting
Mr. Giron’s shooting of Detectives Benedetti and Orozco, those interests are in direct
conflict with and counterbalanced by the privacy interests of the Detectives and their
family members and the City does not have authorization to waive those privacy interests
from those affected parties.
Finally, disclosing the records being sought would very likely also interfere with the
personal recollections and accurate provision of information of parties involved in the
City’s separate internal administrative review of the incident.
Based on the facts and circumstances of the current investigations and the reasons set
forth above, the City concurs with the Sheriff’s Office that the present release of the
records being sought would substantially interfere with their investigation, as well as the
administrative review of the incident being conducted by the City. In accordance with
Government Code § 6254(f), the City will reassess this position and notify you within 30
days from the delivery of this communication if circumstances change in a manner that
would permit release or viewing of the requested materials.
The documents and logs related to Body Worn Cameras used by officers at the scene on
May 10, 2021 are also exempt from disclosure under Penal Code §832.7(b). During an
active administrative investigation, disclosure may be delayed until the investigating
agency determines whether the use of force violated a law or agency policy, but no longer
than 180 days after the use of force or 30 days after the close of any criminal investigation
related to the use of force. Because the neither the administrative nor criminal
investigations are complete and 180 days has not passed, these records are exempt from
disclosure.
While we cannot, at this time, provide you with date certain for disclosure of any portion
or all of the records requested, the completion of the criminal and administrative
investigations is anticipated to take several months. We will continue to update you as we
learn new facts. The undersigned is the person responsible for this determination in
consultation with the Chief of Police, Rick Scott.
Sincerely,
Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
CC: Rita Neal, County Counsel
Rick Scott, Chief of Police
Derek Johnson, City Manager