LaPrensa.org News Desk

A San Diego Superior Court Judge today issued a final ruling in a four-year-old case that now requires police departments to release some videos captured by their police drones, a first-in-the-nation legal ruling that sets a new precedent for public access to law enforcement records.

The lawsuit was filed in May 2021 by Arturo Castañares, Publisher of La Prensa San Diego, seeking the release of videos recorded during March 2021 by the Chula Vista Police Department’s unmanned drones which are used to respond to police calls throughout the City.

“This is a huge victory for access to records that have been hidden from the public for years by police departments categorizing too many records as investigative,” Castañares said after the court ruling. “The California Supreme Court upheld our case forcing police agencies to review each record and to more narrowly apply appropriate exemptions and release more records than they ever have before,” Castañares added.

The City of Chula Vista denied Castañares’ request in March 2021, claiming that all police drone videos were categorically exempt from disclosure as “investigative records” under the California Public Records Act (CPRA) that grants public access to government records with only a few exemptions like files related to ongoing or past investigations.

Police agencies have long used that broad “investigative records” exemption to deny access to records, including emails, texts, and other paper documents. This was the first use of the exemption to shield police drone videos.

Castañares filed the lawsuit arguing that the City was applying the investigative records exemption to videos not connected to actual investigations, thereby shielding too many records from release under the CPRA.

At the time the lawsuit was filed, Chula Vista had become the first police agency in the country authorized by the FAA to fly unmanned drones farther than the line of sight of the operator under a new program being developed to use drones for law enforcement and commercial delivery uses.

The Chula Vista Police Department (CVPD) manages four remote drone launch sites throughout the City but all drones are flown by a sworn police officer housed in a windowless room within the police station in downtown Chula Vista.

The launch sites include the roof of the CVPD headquarters, the roof of Bayview Hospital, the roof of a building at Southwestern College, and the roof of the Ayres Hotel in Millenia.

“As a resident, journalist, and FAA-licensed airplane pilot, I wanted to see how police were using drones and whether they were following safety and privacy laws,” Castañares said. “I have never argued that police shouldn’t be using drones, but if they do, then the videos become public records,” Castañares added. 

In April 2023, San Diego Superior Court Judge Timothy Taylor ruled in favor of the City’s withholding of all police drone videos, but acknowledged that “it is undisputed that no California court has previously taken up the legal questions raised in this case.” 

Castañares appealed to the California Fourth District Court of Appeals in San Diego.

On December 27, 2023, the three-judge appeals court overturned the trial judge, deciding that police drone videos are not automatically exempt from release, instead creating a new legal precedent requiring that the City review each of the videos and categorize them into three separate lists: (1) videos which are part of an investigatory file, (2) those tied to an investigation into whether a law was broken but absent any investigatory file; and (3) a factual inquiry that did not result in any further investigation.

The Appeals Court ruled that videos in Category One are exempt from public disclosure but not those in Category Three, and that the requester could challenge exemptions applied to videos in Category Two.

The City petitioned the California Supreme Court to review the appellate decision.

During the time the case was pending before the California Supreme Court, several police organizations sent letters to the Court in support of Chula Vista’s position and asked the Court to overturn the appellate decision.

One of those letters, submitted by the Los Angeles County Police Chiefs Association, acknowledged what many privacy advocates have feared is a growing deployment of surveillance systems compiling data on an unsuspecting public.

“The data [from drones] can be integrated with other sources, such as public safety camera or satellite feeds and [automated license plate readers], and enhanced by analytical technologies, such as facial recognition software or other Al,” the police Chiefs’ letter stated.

In March 2024, the California Supreme Court rejected the City’s petition and upheld the appeals court, sending the case back to Judge Taylor to work through the process of determining which videos should be released.

The case was published by the Appellate Court and Supreme Court, meaning it set a statewide precedent and can be used by subsequent cases seeking the release of investigative records.

Judge Taylor asked the City to submit a log detailing the date, time, description of each video, and category designation, along with the City’s claimed exemptions.

The City submitted new arguments to shield the disclosure of all 356 videos from March 2021, adding additional exemptions for privacy, medical record information, and a “catch-all” provision that argues the public interest is better served by not disclosing the videos.

The City argued that even videos where no suspect was found or no police activity took place should still be withheld from the public.

For example, one call for service where a drone was launched reported debris in the roadway, but when the drone arrived, the debris had already been removed from traffic. The City argued it was still an investigative record.

In another instance, a call for service reported a fire on the side of the road, but no fire was found by the responding drone. The City also argued to withhold that video.

The City listed 298 of the videos under Category One which covers records tied to investigations which had an attached case number. Those records are exempt from disclosure under existing law and Castañares did not challenge any of those designations.

51 videos were listed under Category Two which did not result in an investigation with a case number but the City still claimed were related to an investigation of a potential crime or violation of law. The City claimed all of those videos should be exempted from disclosure.

Seven videos were listed under Category Three which are not tied to investigations, but the City then added exemptions to withhold all seven from disclosure, claiming the videos would violate personal privacy rights, reveal medical record information, or would better serve the public interest by withholding them.

Castañares objected to the application of new exemptions to some of the videos, and asked the Court to release 30 of the Category Two videos and all seven Category 3 videos. 

In March, Judge Taylor issued an order requiring the City to deliver the 37 disputed videos to him for review in chambers. The City failed to deliver them by the deadline and finally submitted them after another court hearing one week later.

On Friday, Taylor held a merits hearing where the City again argued to exempt all of the videos from disclosure, claiming privacy and investigative exemptions, and arguing that even the videos that showed no police activity were not worth releasing to the public.

Taylor issued his final ruling later in the day, ordering the City to release 25 videos with a few requiring that the City blur people’s faces, building addresses, and street signs. Taylor rejected the City’s claims of privacy, medical record information, and catchall exemptions for those videos.

Judge Taylor's May 16, 2025, final ruling. Download final court ruling here

 

The Judge ruled that several videos were “improvidently designated as investigatory”, meaning the City thoughtlessly claimed exemptions which were not justified by what Taylor saw in the videos, and thejJudge called one of the City's arguments "borderline frivolous."

Taylor cited the Appellate Court’s decision several times in his ruling, connecting the carefully drawn categories to his analysis of the videos.

The ruling asked Castañares to submit a final judgment for signature by May 23rd, and left the issue of attorneys fees and cost to be decided at a later hearing.

Under the California Public Records Act, the prevailing party is entitled to legal fees and costs incurred during the lawsuit. 

Taylor, who was appointed to the Superior Court bench by California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2005, and elected to six-year terms by voters in 2006, 2012, 2018, and 2024, is set to retire at the end of this month.

“This case set a new precedent for the public and, therefore, the media to access more police records that can help shed light on how law enforcement carries out their duties,” Castañares said after the hearing. “I hope this case will force government agencies and police departments to be more transparent in their work to help build and maintain the public’s trust,” Castañares concluded.

San Diego attorney Cory J. Briggs of the Briggs Law Corporation represented Castañares.

The case, Castanares v. City of Chula Vista, is now cited as Castanares v. Superior Court, 95 Cal. App. 5 295 (2023).

Download final court ruling here.