Am. Civil Liberties Union Found. of S. Cal. v. Superior Court of L. A. Cnty.
221 Cal. Rptr. 3d 832
| Cal. | 2017Background
- LAPD and LASD use automated license plate readers (ALPRs) that scan millions of plates weekly, storing plate number, date, time, and location for years.
- ACLU Foundation of Southern California and Electronic Frontier Foundation requested one week of ALPR scan data (plate numbers, time, date, location) under the California Public Records Act (CPRA); agencies produced policies but withheld raw scan data.
- Agencies invoked CPRA exemptions: section 6254(f) (records of investigations) and section 6255(a) (catchall public-interest balancing). Petitioners conceded that hot-list matches tied to investigations are exempt.
- Trial court and Court of Appeal held the requested ALPR scan data exempt under section 6254(f); Supreme Court granted review and asked additional briefing on section 6255(a).
- Supreme Court held bulk, untargeted ALPR scans are not "records of investigations" under §6254(f), but agreed raw scans may be withheld under §6255(a) after balancing; remanded to allow consideration of feasible anonymization/redaction methods.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether bulk ALPR scan data are exempt as "records of investigations" under §6254(f) | ALPR data should be disclosed; scans are not investigation records | Bulk ALPR data are part of law enforcement investigations and thus exempt | Bulk, untargeted ALPR scans are not §6254(f) records of investigations; exemption applies to targeted inquiries only |
| Whether a plate scan becomes exempt when later queried for an investigation | Disclosure permissible because original scans were bulk collection, not investigative records | A later query or match converts scans into investigative records, permitting withholding | A later query does not retroactively convert bulk scans into §6254(f) records; querying alone does not make original scans exempt |
| Whether raw ALPR data can be withheld under the CPRA catchall §6255(a) balancing test | Public interest favors disclosure for oversight of police use and privacy impact analysis | Nondisclosure protects substantial privacy and public safety interests; disclosure risks revealing individuals’ locations and patrol patterns | On the present record, public interest in nondisclosure of raw, unredacted ALPR data clearly outweighs disclosure under §6255(a) |
| Whether anonymized or redacted ALPR data must be disclosed | Anonymization/redaction can protect privacy while permitting public oversight; release is feasible and minimal burden | Anonymization may still reveal patrol patterns or be reversed, imperiling investigations and privacy | Remanded for factfinding: court must evaluate feasible anonymization/redaction methods and reweigh §6255(a); anonymized/redacted data not categorically exempt on this record |
Key Cases Cited
- Haynie v. Superior Court, 26 Cal.4th 1061 (1991) (construes §6254(f) to exempt records of investigations targeting suspected violations)
- Williams v. Superior Court, 5 Cal.4th 337 (1993) (distinguishes investigatory file exemptions and scope of investigatory materials)
- Deukmejian, ACLU Foundation v. Deukmejian, 32 Cal.3d 440 (1982) (discusses intelligence and investigatory exemptions and catchall balancing)
- City of San Jose v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.5th 608 (2017) (CPRA must be construed to further public access)
- Michaelis, Montanari & Johnson v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.4th 1065 (2006) (burden on proponent of nondisclosure; §6255(a) balancing framework)
- Long Beach Police Officers Assn. v. City of Long Beach, 59 Cal.4th 59 (2014) (public safety considerations in access balancing)
- CBS, Inc. v. Block, 42 Cal.3d 646 (1986) (speculative harm insufficient to overcome public access)
- Los Angeles County Bd. of Supervisors v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.5th 282 (2016) (historical context and purpose of CPRA)