HomeMy WebLinkAbout6-15-22 Tribune PRA Response ReassessmentPolice Department
'1042 Walnut Street, San Luis 0bispo, CA 93401
805.781 .73i 7
slocity.org
June 15,2022
Chloe Jones
San Luis Obispo Tribune
1,22 Castaic Avenue
Pismo Beach, CA 93449
cjones@thetribu nenews.com
RE: Reassessment of Determination to Withhold May 10, 7021' Body Camera Footage and
Accompanying Documents
Dear Ms. Jones,
The San Luis Obispo Police Department received your initial record request pursuant to the
california Public Records Act via email on May 5, 2022. On May 16,2022, the San Luis obispo
police Department informed you of our determination that responsive records were exempt
from disclosure pursuant to Government Code 56254(f), $6255, and Penal Code 5832'7(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.
Consistent with statutory requirements, we are continuing monthly to reassess our determination
to withhold the requested records and reaffirm that there is clear and convincing evidence that
disclosure at this time would substantially interfere with the ongoing investigation, currently
referred by the Sheriff's office and under active review by the San Luis obispo District Attorney's
office. The city maintains that the public interest in preventing this interference and ensuring the
integrity of and thorough and efficient completion of the investigation outweighs the public interest
in disclosure of the requested records at this time.
Pursuant to Government Code 56254(fX4)(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'
As noted, the Sheriff's Office has forwarded its investigation to the District Attorney's Office for
review. Until the DA completes its review and determination, the investigation remains active and
ongoing, could be subject to further follow up direction to the Sheriff's Office, and fragmented
disclosure of records and information prior to completion of the DA's work would substantially
interfere with the ongoing criminal and administrative investigations. Specifically, premature
disclosure of fragmented pieces of the investigative materials presents a significant risk of : undue
influence on potentialwitnesses; compromised efficiency and effectiveness in the completion of
The City of San Luis 0bispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781 -7410EI
the DA's investigation and any subsequent investigation the DA's Office may request of the Sheriff's
Office; factual mischaracterization or misunderstanding of partial records separate from the
complete investigation and determination of the DA's review; 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 56255. 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, used 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. Construing Government Code 56255 as applicable to police
personnel record requests honors the Legislature's intent to balance competing public interests of
investigatory integrity, privacy, and disclosu re. Becerra v. Superior Court (App. 7 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, including, but not
limited to, his wife and two young daughters. Similarly, disclosure of the recording constitutes an
unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the other victim in this incident, Detective Orozco, and the
rights of his family, as well as the privacy rights of Edward Giron and his family' The City does not
have authorization to waive the privacy rights of those affected parties.
Finally, disclosing the requested records would likely interfere with the personal recollections of an
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. Moreover, the City's administrative investigation necessarily will need to be
informed by the final factual findings and conclusions of the criminal review being conducted by the
DA's Office and, therefore, the conclusions of the internal investigation willtrailthe completion of
the DA's review.
Based on the facts and circumstances of the current investigations and reasons set forth above, the
City reaffirms its determination that there is clear and convincing evidence 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. ln accordance with Government Code
56254(fX4)(AXii), 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 specific date for disclosure of the requested
records, we will make non-exempt, responsive records available withing 30 days of notification that
the DA's Office has concluded its investigation and the City's ongoing internal investigation is
complete and/or it is determined that disclosure of non-exempt case related materials will not
compromise the completion of the administrative investigation. We will continue to update you as
we learn new facts.
The San Luis Obispo City Attorney, Christine Dietrick, is responsible for this determination in
consultation with the Chief of Police, Rick Scott.
Sincerely,
Tera Rapp
Records Supervisor
San Luis Obispo Police DePartment