56 Cal.App.5th 172
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- In 2014–2015 two Riverside County judges authorized an unusually large number of wiretaps; Wiretap Order No. 15-409 (June–July 2015) included Miguel Guerrero’s phone. Guerrero was never charged in connection with the wiretap.
- Guerrero learned in 2016 that his calls had been intercepted and alleges he never received the statutorily required notice. He seeks the wiretap application, orders, and intercepted communications to evaluate possible civil claims under Cal. Penal Code § 629.86 and to inform the public.
- Guerrero moved in superior court under Penal Code § 629.68 to inspect “portions of the intercepted communications, applications, and orders” that the judge finds in the interest of justice.
- The District Attorney opposed, arguing § 629.66 (which requires a showing of “good cause” to disclose sealed wiretap applications and orders) controls and that there is a statutory presumption in favor of sealing.
- The trial court applied the § 629.66 good-cause standard, denied Guerrero’s motion, and Guerrero appealed.
- The Court of Appeal held the trial court applied the wrong legal standard, remanded for reconsideration under the correct § 629.68 “interest of justice” standard, and declined to resolve Guerrero’s separate First Amendment access claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a person entitled to an inventory notice must show “good cause” under § 629.66 before seeking inspection under § 629.68 | Guerrero: § 629.68 governs and requires only a discretionary “interest of justice” showing | DA: § 629.66’s requirement that applications/orders be sealed and disclosed only for "good cause" governs first | Court: § 629.68 applies to persons entitled to inventory notice and calls for an “interest of justice” balancing; § 629.66 good-cause presumption does not control when § 629.68 applies |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by applying the wrong standard and denying inspection | Guerrero: trial court misapplied § 629.66 and required proof beyond the proper balancing test | DA: requiring good cause was proper to protect privacy and confidentiality | Court: abuse of discretion because trial court applied wrong legal standard; remand for reconsideration under § 629.68 |
| Scope of permitted disclosure — whether targets can obtain intercepted communications | Guerrero: § 629.68 permits a target to inspect portions of intercepted communications, applications, and orders when in the interest of justice | DA: concerns about privacy and ongoing investigations justify limiting access (and public access is presumptively disfavored) | Court: statutory scheme distinguishes target vs. public; § 629.68 permits targets access to portions of intercepted communications; § 629.66 limits public to applications/orders and requires good cause |
| Whether the public/press have a First Amendment right of access to wiretap materials | Guerrero and amici: qualified First Amendment right of access to these materials | DA: statutory confidentiality and privacy protections restrict access; statutory route is controlling | Court: declined to decide the First Amendment question because the statutory ruling was dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Leon, 40 Cal.4th 376 (Cal. 2007) (discussing necessity requirement for wiretaps)
- Collection Bureau of San Jose v. Rumsey, 24 Cal.4th 301 (Cal. 2000) (more specific statutory provisions control over general ones)
- HCSC-Laundry v. United States, 450 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1981) (specific statute controls over general provision)
- In re Charlisse C., 45 Cal.4th 145 (Cal. 2008) (error of law constitutes abuse of discretion)
- In re New York Times Co. to Unseal Wiretap, 577 F.3d 401 (2d Cir. 2009) (news organization lacked good cause to unseal wiretap materials)
- Natl. Broadcasting Co. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 735 F.2d 51 (2d Cir. 1984) (denial of public access to wiretap materials where good cause lacking)
- S.E.C. v. Rajaratnam, 622 F.3d 159 (2d Cir. 2010) (distinguishing disclosure rules for applications/orders from those for intercepted communications)
- Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of California, 464 U.S. 501 (U.S. 1984) (public access to proceedings promotes appearance of fairness)