HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-11-01 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
November 1, 2021
Paula Canny
Law Offices of Paula Canny
Pkcanny@aol.com
Sent via email and U.S. Postal Service
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, and Penal Code §832.7 (b), in addition to
the constitutional privacy interests of persons depicted in certain requested records and/or
their heirs, and, therefore, would withhold the records from disclosure. On August 6, 2021,
the City informed you that disclosure of the requested records remained a substantial risk
of interference to an ongoing investigation and, thus, continued to withhold the records
from disclosure pursuant to Government Code §6255.
Consistent with statutory requirements, we have again reassessed our determination to
withhold the requested records and reaffirm that disclosure at this time would
substantially interfere with the ongoing investigation. The City maintains that the public
interest in preventing this interference and ensuring the integrity and efficient completion
of the investigation outweighs the public interest in disclosure of the requested records.
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 Sherriff’s Office has recently indicated that their investigation is pending the results of
laboratory tests, and, therefore, remains active and ongoing. The Sheriff’s Office, thus,
continues to believe that the fragmented disclosure of records and information without
context would continue to 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
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 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.
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