Electronic Frontier Foundation, Inc. v. Super. Ct.
E076778
Cal. Ct. App.
Sep 15, 2022

Background

  • EFF sought unsealing of eight San Bernardino County search-warrant packets (March 2017–March 2018) that authorized use of cell-site simulators; EFF wanted oversight information about the investigations and devices.
  • The County consented to unseal one packet but opposed unsealing portions of seven packets (primarily Hobbs affidavits and returns) on grounds of confidential informant privilege (Evid. Code §1041) and official-information privilege (Evid. Code §1040).
  • All warrants had been executed and investigations completed; some led to indictments and convictions; the trial court reviewed materials in camera and ordered the Hobbs affidavits sealed indefinitely.
  • EFF appealed, arguing entitlement to unseal under Penal Code §1534(a), Cal. Rules of Court 2.550/2.551, the First Amendment, the California Constitution, and common law.
  • The appellate court affirmed: it upheld the trial court’s sealing order, finding the affidavits contained official information or would reveal confidential informant identity and that statutory privileges and investigatory interests outweighed EFF’s access claims.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Standing to seek unsealing EFF asserted public right of access and rule-based standing (Rule 2.551(h)(2)). County suggested EFF lost standing once trial court sealed records. EFF has standing; public has right to move to unseal.
Effect of Penal Code §1534(a) vs Hobbs/Evid. Code privileges §1534(a) makes executed warrants public; EFF said affidavits must be unsealed. Hobbs and Evid. Code §§1041,1040 create exceptions allowing sealing to protect informants and official information. Hobbs/Evidence Code privileges create exception to §1534(a); sealing was proper.
Standard of review for denying disclosure EFF urged de novo/independent review (First Amendment implications). County urged abuse-of-discretion for statutory-privilege rulings. Abuse-of-discretion is appropriate for §1040/§1041 sealing rulings; court found no abuse; would affirm even under de novo.
Applicability of Rules 2.550/2.551 EFF argued the rules required unsealing and procedural findings. County said rules do not override statutory or Hobbs-based confidentiality. Rules do not trump statutory privileges; they do not require unsealing Hobbs affidavits.
First Amendment right of access EFF invoked Press-Enterprise history-and-utility test to assert a qualified First Amendment right. County argued no historical tradition of access and public-safety/investigatory harms outweigh utility. No First Amendment right: failed history and utility prongs; even under NBC Subsidiary balancing, sealing was justified.
State constitutional and common-law access EFF argued California Constitution (arts I §§2, 3(b)) and common law require access. County relied on §3(b)(5) savings clause and statutory privileges preserving law-enforcement confidentiality. State constitutional and common-law claims do not overcome statutory privileges; sealing affirmed.

Key Cases Cited

  • People v. Hobbs, 7 Cal.4th 948 (Cal. 1994) (establishes procedure and deference for sealing search-warrant affidavits to protect informant identity)
  • KNBC-TV, Inc. v. Superior Court (NBC Subsidiary), 20 Cal.4th 1178 (Cal. 1999) (sets history-and-utility framework and four-part test for constitutional sealing orders)
  • Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1986) (Press-Enterprise public-access/history-and-utility test)
  • In re the Search of Fair Finance, 692 F.3d 424 (6th Cir. 2012) (holds no First Amendment right to search-warrant materials; utility concerns weigh against access)
  • People v. Suff, 58 Cal.4th 1013 (Cal. 2014) (trial court discretion and abuse-of-discretion review for official-information disclosure rulings)
  • People v. Jackson, 128 Cal.App.4th 1009 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (discusses access claims to search-warrant materials but distinguished here)
  • People v. Galland, 45 Cal.4th 354 (Cal. 2008) (balancing public access against investigatory and privacy interests)
  • People v. Martinez, 132 Cal.App.4th 233 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (affirming sealing where disclosure would reveal informant identity)
  • People v. Acevedo, 209 Cal.App.4th 1040 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (application of Evid. Code §1040 to protect official information)
  • United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (U.S. 1972) (warrant applications are ex parte and traditionally closed to protect investigations)
Read the full case