An increasing number of cities are adding drone flights to their law enforcement tool kit. Public access to appropriately redacted video footage from those flights can provide oversight of police surveillance and help ensure cities are living up to their privacy promises.
Every second of every drone video should not be categorically exempt from public records laws as an investigatory record. This is the argument of an amicus letter filed in California state court last week by EFF, the First Amendment Coalition, and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
The case centers around a journalist who requested drone flight videos created by the Chula Vista Police Department, under the California Public Records Act (CPRA). The department touts its program as one of the first in the country to use drones as first responders to emergency calls for police service, and the city has advocated for other law enforcement to create similar programs. EFF has previously raised alarm that the relative cheapness of deploying drones—compared to helicopters or on-the-ground policing—encourages more surveillance.
In denying the public records request, the city claimed the videos were categorically exempt from disclosure under the CPRA because they are investigatory records. After the requester sued, the trial court agreed with Chula Vista and ruled that it would be unduly burdensome to require the city to review the video footage and release redacted versions. The requester has asked the California Court of Appeal to reverse the trial court’s decision.
EFF’s amicus letter filed in the appellate court argues that the CPRA’s investigatory records’ exemption must be construed narrowly, and that the city did not carry its burden to prove that either (1) all drone flights derive from a targeted criminal investigation, or (2) that every moment of footage is exempt. The city’s own policies note that it deploys drones for noncriminal matters, such
[…]
Content was cut in order to protect the source.Please visit the source for the rest of the article.
Read the original article: