BWC Footage and CPRA Update (Third Circuit Court of Appeal Decision)

06.12.2025

A recent decision by the California Court of Appeal, Third District, offers new clarity on the scope of law enforcement video and audio disclosure obligations under the California Public Records Act (“CPRA”), particularly as they relate to “critical incidents” involving police use of force. In Sacramento Television Stations Inc. v. Superior Court of Placer County (2025) --- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, the appellate court addressed whether a city must disclose additional body-worn camera and related footage following an officer-involved shooting, and what evidentiary burden a public agency must satisfy to delay or withhold such records based on an asserted “active investigation.”

Background

The case arose from an April 2023 incident in a City of Roseville park. After a violent confrontation that left one hostage dead and multiple individuals wounded, Sacramento Television Stations Inc. (operating as CBS News Sacramento) requested all body camera, dash camera, and drone footage from the incident, beginning with officers’ arrival at the scene and ending when the suspect was apprehended and the scene was secured.

In response, the City released four short segments of body camera footage and two radio audio clips, arguing that this satisfied the requirements of Government Code section 7923.625. The City asserted that the “critical incident” covered only those discrete moments when officers actually discharged their firearms. The City also claimed an “active investigation” exemption justified withholding additional footage, citing the pending prosecution of the suspect and a court order sealing certain materials. When the superior court sided with the City, the news outlet sought review in the Court of Appeal.

Section 7923.625 of the CPRA governs public access to video and audio recordings relating to “critical incidents,” including any “incident involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer.” Subdivision (e) defines which incidents are covered, while subdivision (a) permits temporary withholding if disclosure would “substantially interfere with an active criminal or administrative investigation,” with agencies bearing a heightened burden the longer disclosure is delayed.

The Appellate Court’s Ruling

The appellate court began its analysis by emphasizing the CPRA’s constitutional foundation and its strong presumption in favor of disclosure, as affirmed in City of San Jose v. Superior Court (2017) 2 Cal.5th 608. The court observed that exceptions to public access must be narrowly construed and that statutes limiting disclosure should be read to further the people’s right of access.

In evaluating the City’s position, the appellate court held that the City’s narrow interpretation of “incident involving the discharge of a firearm” was inconsistent with both the statutory text and legislative intent. The court rejected the idea that mere seconds of footage before and after the moment of discharge are sufficient. Instead, the court held that context is required—enough footage before and after the discharge to allow the public to “fully, completely, and accurately comprehend the events captured in the recording.” The court found that the City’s approach risked “decontextualized, atomized data,” which would defeat the transparency objectives underlying Assembly Bill No. 748.

The court also addressed the “active investigation” exemption, noting that a pending criminal prosecution does not, by itself, constitute an “active investigation” sufficient to justify withholding. The City’s evidentiary showing consisted primarily of a prosecutor’s concerns regarding media publicity and the defendant’s fair trial rights, but the court found these generalized concerns insufficient. Citing Becerra v. Superior Court (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 897, the court reiterated that agencies must present “meaningful detail” and not rely on broad or conclusory assertions. Absent specific evidence showing that disclosure would substantially interfere with an ongoing investigation, the exemption does not apply.

Impact on Public Agencies

This ruling has numerous important takeaways for public agencies. Agencies must interpret “incident involving the discharge of a firearm” under Government Code section 7923.625(e) broadly enough to encompass sufficient pre- and post-incident footage to provide meaningful context for the public. Disclosing only the moments immediately surrounding the use of force will likely not satisfy the statutory requirement.

Public agencies seeking to withhold records under the “active investigation” exemption bear a significant evidentiary burden. They must demonstrate, with specific and concrete evidence, that disclosure would substantially interfere with an ongoing investigation. The mere existence of a related criminal prosecution, without more, is insufficient. If privacy concerns are asserted, agencies may redact recordings to protect privacy interests, but only if redaction does not impede the public’s ability to comprehend the events. Complete withholding is permitted only where privacy cannot be otherwise protected and that interest clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure.

In light of this decision, agencies should review their policies and practices for compliance, ensuring that their responses to records requests afford the level of disclosure the law now clearly contemplates.

If you have any questions concerning this alert, please contact the authors of this alert or any AALRR attorney for guidance.