Chula Vista wants the state’s highest court to weigh in on whether its police drone footage can be kept secret.
It is the latest development in a case that was filed against the South Bay city in 2021. Arturo Castañares, a Chula Vista resident and the owner and publisher of the bilingual news organization La Prensa San Diego, sued after the city refused to provide footage recorded by the Police Department’s drones.
In April, a San Diego Superior Court judge agreed with the city’s legal position that none of the videos had to be released under the California Public Records Act because of an exemption that allows investigative material to remain confidential.
California’s 4th District Court of Appeal saw things differently. In a December opinion, the court acknowledged any of the city’s videos that capture investigations “undertaken for the purpose of determining whether a violation of law may occur or has occurred” are confidential. But it questioned whether every video that was requested met that standard.
The court listed several examples — such as using a drone to look into reports of a water leak or a stranded motorist — that could be made public under state law.
“We conclude, based on the record before us, the trial court’s broad ruling that all drone video footage, as a matter of law, is categorically exempt because the drones are only dispatched in response to 911 calls was error,” the opinion reads.
On Jan. 9, Chula Vista decided to ask the California Supreme Court to take a look at the issue, officials said Wednesday. The high court has 60 days to decide whether to take the case.
“While the City takes very seriously its obligation to provide the public access to public records, the City is concerned that the Court of Appeal’s opinion may compromise significant privacy concerns of members of the public in this case, or in future requests,” the city said in a statement.
According to court records, Castañares initially sought drone footage from all flights conducted in March 2021 — about 370 calls. He later qualified the request to exclude any video related to ongoing or pending investigations on the condition that police provide a log of the videos it planned to withhold.
City officials restated Wednesday that reviewing and redacting every video to protect personal information such as images of faces, license plates and backyards would have taken a full-time employee about 230 days to complete.
“The City’s hesitation to release copies of the video is not due to any desire for secrecy or to avoid accountability, but to avoid losing a program due to excessive costs and risks to the public’s privacy,” the Wednesday statement read.
However, it’s unclear how many of the videos would be subject to disclosure under the guidelines described in the appeals court opinion. The case was remanded back to the trial court so the city could determine how many — if any — of the videos are not related to police investigations and are therefore releasable.
That process will remain on hold until the state’s high court decides if it will weigh in.
