HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-08-06 Reassessment of Public Records Request Determination
August 6, 2021
Paula Canny
Law Offices of Paula Canny
Pkcanny@aol.com
Re: Reassessment of Determination to Withhold May 10, 2021 Body Camera Footage and
Accompanying Documents
Dear Ms. Canny:
The City of San Luis Obispo (“City”) received your initial record request pursuant to the
California Public Records Act delivered via email on June 30, 2021. On July 9, 2021, the City
informed you of our determination that responsive records were exempt from disclosure
pursuant to Government Code §6254 (f), §6255, Penal Code §832.7 (b), in addition to the
constitutional privacy interests of persons depicted in certain requested records and/or their
heirs, and would withhold the records from disclosure. Consistent with statutory
requirements, we have reassessed our determination to withhold the requested records and
reaffirm that disclosure at this time would substantially interfere with the ongoing
investigation and that the public interest in preventing this interference outweighs the public
interest in disclosure.
Pursuant to Government Code §6254 (f) (4) (A) (ii), an agency may delay disclosure of a
recording related to a critical incident during an active criminal or administrative
investigation provided the decision to withhold is reassessed every 30 days and disclosure of
the recording is found to be a continued interference risk for an ongoing 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 presents a significant risk of: undue
influence on potential witnesses; compromised efficiency and effectiveness in the
completion of the 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 delayed 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 requested clearly outweighs the public’s interest in
disclosure, pursuant to Government Code §6255. The court in Becerra v. Superior Court held
that amending the 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 which fell within the public
interest catchall exemption to disclosure under the California Public Records Act (CPRA).
Construing Government Code §6255 as applicable to police personnel record requests
honors the Legislature’s intent to balance competing public interests of investigatory
integrity, privacy, and disclosure. Becerra v. Superior Court (App. 1 Dist. 2020) 257
Cal.Rptr.3d 897.
Further, disclosure of portions of the recording depicting Detective Benedetti’s death
constitutes an unwarranted invasion of his personal privacy and of the rights of his survivors
and heirs, including, but not limited to, his wife and two young daughters. Similarly,
disclosure of the recording constitutes an unwarranted invasion of the privacy rights of the
other victim in this incident, Detective Orozco, and the rights of his family. While it is
understood that your clients’ privacy interests are also certainly implicated, and being
apparently waived in favor of disclosing this recording, those interests are in direct conflict
with and counterbalanced by the privacy interests of both Detectives and their families. The
City does not have authorization to waive the privacy interests of those affected parties.
Finally, disclosing the requested records would very likely interfere with the personal
recollections of and accurate provision of information by parties involved in the City’s
separate internal administrative review of the incident and could similarly compromise the
accuracy, completeness, and integrity of that investigation.
Based on the facts and circumstances of the current investigations and reasons set forth
above, the City reaffirms its determination that the present release of the requested records
would continue to substantially interfere with both the criminal and administrative
investigations of the May 10, 2021 incident. In accordance with Government Code §6254 (f)
(4) (A) (ii), the City will reassess this position and notify you of our determination within
another 30 days from the delivery of this communication.
In response to the portion of your request regarding documents and logs related to Body
Worn Cameras used by officers at the scene on May 10, 2021, city staff has determined that
no such records exist. Documents and logs related to Body Worn Cameras, beyond the
footage itself, are not routinely created or retained in any case by the San Luis Obispo Police
Department.
While we cannot, at this time, provide you with a date certain for disclosure of the requested
records, 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 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