The California Public Records Act (CPRA) generally requires disclosure of information relating to a "critical incident." On June 6, 2025, the Court of Appeal in Sacramento Television Stations Inc. v. Superior Court provided new guidance regarding what must be disclosed and the burden of the public agency wishing to withhold such records from disclosure. The Court held that the City of Roseville ("City") was required to release additional body-camera footage stemming from an officer-involved shooting because the City had not satisfied its burden of demonstrating that an exemption applied. More specifically, the City stated that because the incident was an ongoing "active investigation", the footage should not be disclosed. However, the Court elaborated in its holding that a pending criminal prosecution, by itself and without more information, is not an "active investigation" within the meaning of the CPRA exemption. The Court also found that a prosecutor's generalized concerns about victim trauma and impairment of a criminal defendant's right to a fair trial, while legitimate, do not by themselves demonstrate how it will substantially interfere with an active investigation.
Background
On April 6, 2023, around 12:30 p.m., Roseville Police Department ("Roseville PD") responded to a call for service in a city park after the California Highway Patrol ("CHP") officers attempted to serve a warrant on Eric J. Abril ("Abril"), and Abril shot one of the CHP officers. Roseville PD learned Abril had a gun and was holding two civilian hostages. Multiple Roseville PD officers fired shots, and around 1:13 p.m., a wounded Abril was captured.
Sacramento Television Stations ("Sac TV") (operating as CBS News Sacramento) sought body camera and dashboard camera footage of the April 6 incident. The City responded by providing four clips of the body worn camera footage and withheld the rest.
The CPRA requires disclosure of records relating to "critical incidents." Government Code section 7923.625(e) defines a critical incident as an "incident[s] involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer." Subdivision (a) lays out various timelines for delaying disclosure and permits the delay if the disclosure would "substantially interfere with an active criminal or administrative investigation." The longer the disclosure is delayed, the higher the burden an agency must meet to justify the withholding. Subdivision (b) permits agencies to balance public interest and reasonable expectations of privacy by redacting specific portions of a video or audio recording, such as using blurring or distorting images or audio, to obscure specific portions of the recording that protect the privacy interest. The agency can withhold the record if it demonstrates that the privacy interest outweighs the public interest in disclosure, and the subject depicted in the recording cannot be adequately protected through redaction.
The City argued that if it were required to disclose any additional footage, the disclosure would substantially interfere with an active investigation. In support of the active investigation exemption, the City cited a prosecutor's declaration stating concerns that releasing additional footage would cause victim trauma and impact Abril's ability for a fair trial.
The trial court found that the CPRA required a recording of a shooting to include more than just the seconds before and after the shooting. However, the court found that because the City made a showing that there was an active investigation, further disclosures were not warranted. Sac TV timely appealed.
The Court of Appeal's Decision
The Court of Appeal ultimately remanded this case back to the trial court, but before doing so, provided greater clarity on the City's disclosure obligations and burden of proof.
Incident Involving the Discharge of a Firearm
Sac TV argued that the City was required to disclose recordings that depict "the totality of circumstances before and after a police shooting," including post-shooting footage to confirm that law enforcement "promptly rendered first aid, secured the scene, and refrained from contamination or planting evidence." The City argued that it was only required to disclose "the context leading up to the discharge [of a firearm], the discharge itself, and the officer's disengagement following the discharge," which here was the 39 seconds of video already provided. Amici in support of the City made similar arguments to the City's.
The Court found Sac TV's interpretation too broad and the City's too narrow. The Court refused to draw a bright line rule of determining when an "incident involving" an officer's discharge of a firearm at a person starts and ends. However, the Court did stress the City must disclose enough to permit a "viewer's ability to fully, completely, and accurately comprehend the events captured" in a recording that relates to a critical incident. Regarding Sac TV's argument, the Court acknowledged that though members of the public may be interested in post-shooting footage related to providing medical aid and securing the scene, the CPRA does not require that to be disclosed. Regarding the City's and amici's argument, the Court found that "mere seconds of context surrounding an officer's discharge of a firearm will rarely, if ever, be sufficient to understand what happened."
The Court found that Sac TV would be at least entitled to "(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." However, the court remanded to the superior court to make the ultimate determination as to what the City must disclose.
Active Investigation Analysis
The Court was not persuaded by the City's argument that additional body-camera footage was exempt from disclosure because there was an "active investigation". Instead, the Court found that a pending criminal prosecution, "by itself and without more information," is not an "active investigation" within the meaning of the CPRA exemption. The court examined the legislative history of Senate Bill 1421 (a bill also relating to disclosure of law enforcement records) and found that the Legislature understands that a "proceeding" is sometimes distinct from an "investigation." The court found the City attempted to conflate an investigation and a proceeding. The Court acknowledged there may be times when there is an active investigation and also a pending criminal prosecution, but there was not enough evidence presented to the trial court to find this scenario existed. The Court found the evidence presented – the prosecutor's declaration that the release of certain images would create traumatic publicity for the victims and would "greatly impair" Abril's right to a fair trial – were legitimate concerns but were not enough to demonstrate how the disclosure of records would substantially interfere with an active investigation.
The court did not provide guidance on exactly when an active investigation exists, though it had the opportunity to. Instead, the Court found that "[t]he operative question here is whether the City presented sufficient evidence to the superior court that there was in fact an active investigation..."
City's Other Arguments
The City made a few other arguments, which were quickly discussed and dismissed by the court. For example, the City attempted to argue the catchall exemption applied, but the court found the City forfeited this argument because it did not raise it at the trial court level.
Take Aways
An agency must provide recordings that give the requester sufficient context to understand what caused the critical incident and what happened in the immediate aftermath. Short, decontextualized recordings will likely not satisfy the disclosure requirements.
Furthermore, if an agency plans to delay disclosure of law enforcement video or audio recordings of a critical incident, the agency must be able to show how release of the footage will substantially interfere with an active investigation and specify why the incident is an "active investigation". The Court's finding that a pending criminal prosecution by itself is not an active investigation serves as a good reminder to show something more than a blanket statement that there is a pending criminal prosecution.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
