Judge Erred in Denying Media Access to Bodycam Footage

Monday, June 9, 2025

Page 1

Court of Appeal:

Judge Erred in Denying Media Access to Bodycam Footage

Opinion Says City Must Disclose Some Video Depicting Lead-up to Officer Shooting Despite Ongoing Criminal Case Because ‘Active Investigation’ Exception in Public Records Act Does Not Encompass Prosecutions

By Kimber Cooley, associate editor

The Third District Court of Appeal held Friday that the City of Roseville must disclose to local media outlet additional audio and video recordings capturing the moments before officers fired shots at a suspect, killing a witness that the man was allegedly holding captive, finding that an exception in the California Public Records Act for “active investigations” did not allow for a delay in production due to an ongoing criminal prosecution of the hostage-taker.

Sacramento Television Stations Inc. (“Sac TV”), which operates as CBS News Sacramento, requested footage from the Roseville Police Department of any footage from body-worn or dashboard cameras relating to the April 6, 2023 fatal incident. A lieutenant responded by email, including a link to four clips, each 39 seconds long, of footage showing the actual shooting.

A reporter with the media organization insisted that the department was required to release the “full footage” from all body cameras, beginning with the time the officers arrived at the park and ending when the suspect was arrested, under the California Public Records Act (“CPRA”), codified at Government Code §7920 et seq.

Assembly Bill 748

Specifically, the news outlet argues that Assembly Bill 748, which passed in 2018, mandated the disclosure. Prior to the passage of this legislation, police agencies could generally decline to release body camera footage by invoking a CPRA exception for law enforcement investigatory records.

Assembly Bill 748 added §7923.625, which provides that “a video or audio recording that relates to a critical incident…may be withheld only” during an “active criminal or administrative investigation” for no longer than 45 calendar days if disclosure would “substantially interfere with the investigation, such as by endangering the safety of a witness or a confidential source.”

Under subdivision (a)(2), after 45 days, an agency may continue to delay for up to one year “if the agency demonstrates that disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation,” and beyond one year “only if the agency demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation.”

A “critical incident” is defined in subdivision (e) as one “in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death or in great bodily injury.”

Writ of Mandate

In February 2024, Sac TV field a petition for writ of mandate seeking an order directing the city to “immediately disclose” any “recordings from the moment that Roseville PD was dispatched after hearing ‘shots fired,’ to the time that law enforcement apprehended the armed suspect and secured the scene, approximately one hour later.”

The city argued that the release of more footage would substantially interfere with an ongoing investigation, specifically the criminal prosecution of the hostage-taker, Eric J. Abril.

Sacramento Superior Court Judge Glenn M. Holley denied the petition the following October, finding that the city had shown by clear and convincing evidence that further disclosure would substantially interfere with the “active investigation” in Abril’s criminal case. Sac TV filed a petition for writ of mandate, seeking reversal of the ruling and an order compelling disclosure.

In an opinion written by Acting Presiding Justice Stacy E. Boulware Eurie, and joined in by Justice Shama Hakim Mesiwala and retired Fifth District Justice Rebecca Wiseman, sitting on assignment, the court granted the writ of mandate, directing the court to “(1) vacate its…ruling that the ‘active investigation’ exemption of subdivision (a) applies to Sac TV’s request…and (2) hold further proceedings, including an in camera examination of the City’s recordings, consistent with the reasoning in this opinion.”

Definitional Matter

Boulware Eurie wrote:

“As a definitional matter, we agree with the thrust of Sac TV’s position that a pending criminal prosecution, by itself and without more information, is not an ‘active investigation’ within the meaning of subdivision (a).”

She turned to the committee analysis of the assembly bill and pointed out that one commentator expressed concern that it failed to adequately protect “ongoing investigations or active prosecutions.” Saying that “the City…appears to conflate the two concepts without much analysis,” she noted:

“The City…argues that ‘[t]here is good reason to interpret’ the word ‘investigation’ used in subdivision (a) as including ‘investigations done by or on behalf of a defendant in a criminal matter.’ In support of this reading, the City observes that the prosecution and a criminal defendant have reciprocal disclosure obligations, which exist in part to ensure that any conviction is fairly based on a full disclosure of critical facts.”

Rejecting this contention, she remarked:

“We are not persuaded. CPRA’s intricate scheme regarding ‘investigations’ is about investigations by government agencies, not investigations by criminal defendants….The protection of a criminal defendant’s rights is a matter for a judge presiding over that criminal matter, not a judge in a writ proceeding to which the criminal defendant is not a party.”

Prejudice to Proceedings

The jurist acknowledged that the judge in the criminal matter had sealed exhibits presented during a preliminary hearing, purportedly including images relating to the shooting, after finding that there was a sufficient showing that the “on-going investigation” would be prejudiced absent such an order. However, she added:

“[W]hile there may be times when there is an active investigation and there is also a pending criminal prosecution, the evidence presented to the superior court here does not amount to substantial evidence that such a scenario existed….The totality of the evidence appears to consist of statements in a declaration by Abril’s prosecutor that it was the People’s concern that the release of certain images presented at Abril’s preliminary hearing ‘would create traumatic publicity for the victims and would greatly impair’ Abril’s ‘ability to receive a fair jury trial.’ A prosecutor’s stated concerns about victim trauma and impairment of a criminal defendant’s right to a fair trial in a pending criminal prosecution, however legitimate, do not—without more detail—demonstrate how disclosure of certain recordings will substantially interfere with an active investigation.”

Boulware Eurie remarked that “the superior court declined to determine how much additional disclosure subdivision (e) required in this dispute,” given its finding that an exemption applied, but said that “because the ‘active investigation’ finding was erroneous, the superior court must now determine how much more disclosure is required.”

She remanded the matter to allow the trial court to make a determination as to the proper scope of the disclosure, declaring:

“[I]t is difficult to imagine how Sac TV would be entitled here to anything less than (a) uninterrupted copies of all Roseville PD recordings of the April 6 occurrence that were captured during the three-minute window of time when, the City alleges, the entire incident involving firearm discharge by Roseville PD took place, along with (b) additional recordings that provide sufficient context to permit an understanding of why the first shot was fired and what happened in the immediate aftermath of the final shot. After conducting an in camera review of the City’s unedited recordings, the superior court will be in the best position to determine precisely how much more audio and video footage the City must disclose to Sac TV.”