My personal opinion is that the next step should be a judicial review.
I write in response to the County’s September 4, 2025 letter concerning my Public Records Act request dated May 31, 2025. While I acknowledge receipt of the County’s production of certain records, I must object to the scope of the claimed exemptions and the categorical withholding of large classes of responsive records.
Overbroad Reliance on Investigatory Exemptions The County asserts Gov’t Code §§ 7923.600–7923.625 as a blanket basis to withhold all body-worn camera (“BWC”) footage and investigative records. As you are aware, the investigatory exemption is not absolute and must be narrowly construed. (See American Civil Liberties Union v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1032, 1043.) Even if portions of footage or reports are exempt, the County must produce segregable, non-exempt factual material. (Gov’t Code § 7922.525(b); County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1330–31.) Failure to Justify Deliberative Process Withholdings The County invokes the deliberative process privilege under Gov’t Code § 7922.000 and case law, yet provides no specific factual showing of how disclosure would expose the deliberative process. As the courts have held, a conclusory reference to deliberative process is insufficient. (Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1325, 1345.) The agency bears the burden of articulating the “public interest in nondisclosure clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure.” (Gov’t Code § 7922.000.) Personnel and Penal Code § 832.7 Records The County’s categorical withholding of all BWC footage on the ground it may be maintained in personnel files is contrary to law. Penal Code § 832.7 expressly mandates disclosure of numerous categories of records, including sustained findings of misconduct and uses of force resulting in death or great bodily injury. The County has not indicated whether responsive materials fall within these mandatory disclosure categories, nor has it explained why redaction would not suffice. Requirement of an Adequate Index Under Haynie v. Superior Court (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1061, 1073, and ACLU v. Superior Court, supra, the County must provide sufficient information to enable me to evaluate the applicability of the exemptions claimed. A “Vaughn-type” index or similar description of withheld records is necessary for meaningful review. The current response fails to meet that standard. Continuing Obligation to Disclose The CPRA imposes a continuing duty to disclose records once the basis for withholding no longer applies. (Gov’t Code § 7922.530(a).) Accordingly, I request that the County commit to ongoing review and production of BWC and investigatory materials as exemptions cease to apply.
Request for Reconsideration and Supplemental Response I respectfully request that the County:
Reconsider its categorical withholdings, particularly with respect to BWC footage and investigatory records. Provide a detailed index identifying each withheld record, the exemption invoked, and a factual basis for nondisclosure. Produce all reasonably segregable, non-exempt portions of responsive records. Confirm whether any withheld records fall within the mandatory disclosure categories of Penal Code § 832.7(b).
Please provide a supplemental response within 14 days. If the County continues to withhold records without adequate justification, I will be compelled to pursue all available remedies under the CPRA, including judicial review.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 4, 2025, at 4:19 PM, Aram James
wrote:
Folks:
Here is our latest CPRA request dated today, September 4, 2025.
Richard Konda & Aram James
P.S. see attachment # 9 the sheriff’s press release re the Taser Pilot Project, dated August 28, 2025.
Dear Sterling and Melissa:
Please find our supplement to our August 26, 2025, public records request pursuant to AB 748 and Govt Code 7920.000 et.seq. and attachments.
Sincerely,
----
Richard Konda (he/him/his)
Executive Director
Phone: (408) 287-9710 Email: rkonda@asianlawalliance.org (mailto:rkonda@asianlawalliance.org)
991 W. Hedding Street, Ste. 202 (https://www.google.com/maps/search/991+W.+Hedding+Street,+Ste.+202+%0D%0A+%0D%0A+San+Jose,+CA+95126?entry=gmail&source=g)
San Jose, CA 95126 (https://www.google.com/maps/search/991+W.+Hedding+Street,+Ste.+202+%0D%0A+%0D%0A+San+Jose,+CA+95126?entry=gmail&source=g)
(https://www.facebook.com/ALASantaClara/)
STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY: This message is being sent by a legal organization. The contents of this email message and any attachments are confidential and are intended solely for the addressee. The information may
also be legally privileged. This transmission is sent in trust, for the sole purpose of delivery to the intended recipient. If you have received this transmission in error, any use, reproduction or dissemination of this transmission is strictly prohibited.
If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply email and delete this message and its attachments, if any. Email is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC 2510-2521 and is legally privileged.
<9-4-25 public records request.pdf>
<5-30-25 cja public records request.pdf>
<6-10-25 County Counsel response.pdf>
<8-11-25 cja public records request.pdf>
<8-15-25 County Counsel response.pdf>
<8-15-25 CJA public records request.pdf>
<8-26-25 CJA public records request.pdf>
<11-4-24 Jonsen memo.pdf>
<8-28-25 Taser press release.pdf>