Judge Curtis A. Kin, Case Number: 24STCP02107, Date: 2025-03-04 Tentative Ruling

Petitioner Joongangilbo USA, Inc. dba The Korea Daily seeks a writ of mandate directing respondent City of Los Angeles to disclose documents responsive to petitioner’s California Public Records Act request.

This proceeding relates to an investigation into an officer-involved shooting. According to the investigating officer, on May 2, 2024, personnel from the Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health called for assistance concerning Mr. Yong Yang, who refused to exit his parents’ apartment in the 400 block of South Gramercy Place. (Whang Decl. ¶ 3.) At approximately 10:58 a.m., officers from the Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”) arrived at the apartment. (Whang Decl. ¶¿3.) Standing in the living room several feet from the front door, Yang was holding a large kitchen knife. (Whang Decl. ¶ 3.) Yang advanced toward the officers, resulting in one of the officers shooting Yang. (Whang Decl. ¶ 3.)

On May 15, 2024, pursuant to the California Public Records Act (“CPRA”), petitioner’s counsel sent respondent City of Los Angeles (“City”) the following request for documents in two categories:

1. ALL of the video recordings and accompanying audio footages taken through a body-worn camera or a digital in-car camera of each and every officer who was dispatched to the INCIDENT PLACE during the INCIDENT TIME.

“ALL” is meant to include the terms “each” and “any” and vice-versa, as necessary to bring within the scope of the request all responses that might otherwise be construed to be outside the scope of the request.

“INCIDENT PLACE” means 422 ½ South Gramercy Pl., Los Angeles, CA 90020 where the officer-involved shootings of Mr. Yong Yang happened on May 2, 2024.

2. ALL of the audio recordings of the 911 call from the INCIDENT PLACE made at around 11 a.m. on May 2, 2024.

On May 21, 2024, the City acknowledged receipt of the request. (Jeong Decl. ¶¿5 & Ex. 2 at 23-24.) On May 24, 2024, the City requested the statutory 14-day extension of time to provide a determination on whether the requested records are disclosable. (Jeong Decl. ¶ 5 & Ex. 4 at 29-30; see also Gov. Code § 7922.535 [allowing for maximum 14-day extension for agency to respond to public records request].)

On June 5, 2024, the City indicated to petitioner that it located responsive records. (Jeong Decl. ¶ 20 & Ex. 5 at 34.) However, the City declined to produce the records based on the temporary exemption in Penal Code § 832.7(b)(8)(C) “given that the incident at issue is the subject of an open administrative investigation.” (Jeong Decl. ¶ 20 & Ex. 5 at 34.) The City represented that it would provide an update on or before October 29, 2024. (Jeong Decl. ¶ 20 & Ex. 5 at 34.)

In subsequent communications with petitioner, the City continued to withhold the requested records, stating that disclosure would interfere with an open investigation. (Jeong Decl. ¶ 21 & Exs. 6-11.) In communications dated September 19, 2024, October 16, 2024, November 14, 2024, and December 28, 2024, the City estimated that it would release the requested records on February 2, 2025, “depending on the status of the investigation. (Jeong Decl. ¶ 21 & Exs. 7 at 42, 8 at 46, 9 at 50, 10 at 53.)

The Force Investigation Division (“FID”) of the Professional Standards Bureau (“PSB”) within LAPD conducts administrative and criminal investigations of officer-involved shootings (“OIS”). (Whang Decl. ¶¶ 1, 4; Fuller Decl. ¶¶ 1, 4.) As part of the administrative investigation, FID detectives interview all sworn and civilian witnesses related to the OIS, analyze evidence from the scene of the incident, and review all audiovisual records, including social media and media coverage. (Whang Decl. ¶ 8.) Upon completion of an administrative report, FID provides the report to the respective geographical LAPD division and the Critical Incident Review Division (“CIRD”). (Whang Decl. ¶ 4.) The OIS is then further reviewed by a Use of Force Review Board (“UOFRB”), the Office of the Chief of Police, and then the Board of Police Commissioners (“BOPC”), which issues the final findings. (Whang Decl. ¶ 4.)

After the BOPC completes its review of an OIS, FID detectives present the case to the Justice System Integrity Division (“JSID”) of the District Attorney’s Office, which determines whether the case warrants criminal charges. (Fuller Decl. ¶¶¿4, 5.)

The Chief of Police, BOPC, and prosecutors may direct FID detectives to interview additional witnesses, re-interview witnesses who have already been interviewed, and gather additional non-testimonial evidence. (Whang Decl. ¶ 5.) An administrative investigation remains open until the Chief of Police and BOPC have finished their review. (Whang Decl. ¶ 5.) A criminal investigation remains open until JSID completes its review. (Fuller Decl. ¶ 5.)

The administrative case of the subject OIS was provided to LAPD’s Olympic Division and CIRD in December 2024. (Whang Decl. ¶ 6.) The UOFRB review was scheduled for February 3, 2025. (Whang Decl. ¶ 6.)

On July 2, 2024, petitioner filed a verified Petition for Writ of Mandate. On July 2, 2024, respondent filed an Answer.

On January 6, 2025, petitioner filed an opening brief. On February 3, 2025, respondent filed an opposition. On February 18, 2025, petitioner filed a reply.

Pursuant to the CPRA, individual citizens have a right to access government records. In enacting the CPRA, the California Legislature declared that “access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state.” (Gov. Code § 7921.000; see also Cal. Const. Art. I, Sec. 3(b); County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 57, 63.)

“[E]very person has a right to inspect any public record” of a state or local agency subject to statutory exemptions. (Gov. Code § 7922.530(a); see also Gov. Code § 7920.510(h) [definition of “local agency” includes agent of a city].) The California Constitution mandates that the CPRA be “broadly construed,” while any statute “that limits the right of access” must be “narrowly construed.” (See Cal. Const. Art. I, Sec. 3(b)(2); see also Nat’l Lawyers Guild v. City of Hayward (2020) 9 Cal.5th 488, 507.) The CPRA “does not allow limitations on access to a public record based upon the purpose for which the record is being requested, if the record is otherwise subject to disclosure.” (Gov. Code § 7921.300.)

“Any person may institute a proceeding…for a writ of mandate…to enforce that person’s right…to inspect or receive a copy of any public record or class of public records.” (Gov. Code § 7923.000.) “To establish an agency has a duty to disclose under [the CPRA], the petitioner must show that: (1) the record ‘qualif[ies] as [a] ‘public record[ ]’ …; and (2) the record is ‘in the possession of the agency.’” (Anderson-Barker v Superior Court (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 528, 538.) “Whether a record falls within the statutory definition of a ‘public record’ involves a ‘distinct inquiry’ from whether the agency is in possession of that record…. The duty to disclose applies only when the petitioner has satisfied both elements.” (Id. at 539.)

CPRA exemptions must be narrowly construed, and the agency bears the burden of showing that a specific exemption applies. (Sacramento County Employees’ Retirement System v. Superior Court (2013) 195 Cal.App.4th 440, 453.) A public agency also has the burden to demonstrate that it properly withheld records on the grounds they are non-responsive to a CPRA request or do not constitute public records. (ACLU of Northern Cal. v. Sup. Ct. (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 55, 83-86.) “Because the agency has full knowledge of the contents of the withheld records and the requester has only the agency’s affidavits and descriptions of the documents, its affidavits must be specific enough to give the requester ‘a meaningful opportunity to contest’ the withholding of the documents.” (Id. at 83.)

Petitioner seeks the release of video recordings from the body-worn cameras and digital in-car cameras from each police officer who was dispatched to the place of the subject incident. Petitioner also seeks the release of audio recordings made of the 911 call from the place of the subject incident.

It is undisputed that the requested records are public records and are in the possession of the agency, i.e., LAPD. (See Gov. Code § 7923.600 et seq. [governing disclosure of law enforcement records]; Jeong Decl. ¶ 20 & Ex. 5 at 34 [City indicated that it located records responsive to petitioner’s request].) Accordingly, the issue presented in this petition is whether the City meets its burden to justify its withholding of the requested audio and video recordings. (Sacramento County, 195 Cal.App.4th at 453.)

The City cites Government Code § 7923.625 as a basis for withholding the requested records. (Opp. at 11:16-21.) That statute governs the release of video or audio recordings that relate to a critical incident. (Gov. Code § 7923.625(a).) Recordings relate to a critical incident if they “depict…[a]n incident involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer.” (Gov. Code § 7923.625(e)(1).) It is undisputed that video of the OIS has already been released on the LAPD’s YouTube channel. (Whang Decl. ¶ 7; Opening Br. at 5:25-6:1.) Any other requested audio or video recording does not “depict” the OIS and is accordingly outside the purview of Government Code § 7923.625.¹

Under Penal Code § 832.7, records relating to the report, investigation, or findings of “incident[s] involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer” are not confidential and shall be made available for public inspection under the CPRA. (Pen. Code § 832.7(b)(1)(A)(i).) Records that shall be released include photographic and audio evidence related to the investigation. (Pen. Code § 832.7(b)(3).)

However, records that are subject to active criminal investigations may be withheld after 60 days from the use of force and no longer than 18 months after the incident if the agency provides a written explanation of “the specific basis for the agency’s determination that disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with a criminal enforcement proceeding” against an officer who engaged in the use of force.² (Pen. Code § 832.7(b)(8)(A)(ii).) During an active administrative investigation, the investigating agency may also delay disclosure until it determines whether the use of force violated a law or agency policy, but no longer than 180 days after the agency discovered the use of force. (Pen. Code §¿832.7(b)(8)(C).)

The City maintains that disclosure of the requested records would substantially interfere with LAPD’s open administrative and criminal investigation. Detectives from LAPD’s Force Investigation Division, which oversees both administrative and criminal investigations of officer-involved shootings, aver that, because the relevant factfinders have not completed their review of the OIS, it is possible that witnesses may need to be interviewed or re-interviewed. (Whang Decl. ¶ 5; Fuller Decl. ¶ 5.) Witnesses who have seen videos related to an OIS are admonished to answer based on their own independent recollection and not rely on the videos. (Whang Decl. ¶ 9; Fuller Decl. ¶ 6.) According to the FID detectives, public disclosure of audiovisual records could adversely influence witness testimony and the gathering of evidence. (Whang Decl. ¶ 9; Fuller Decl. ¶ 6.)

With respect to the administrative investigation, more than 180 days have passed since the incident, the date when LAPD discovered the use of force. (See Whang Decl. ¶ 3 [FID detective assigned to investigate subject OIS on May 2, 2024].) Pursuant to Penal Code § 832.7(b)(8)(C), LAPD may no longer withhold release of the requested records based on an ongoing administrative investigation.

With respect to the criminal investigation, the detectives’ averments are insufficient to show the “specific basis” for LAPD’s determination that disclosure of the requested records “could reasonably be expected to interfere with a criminal enforcement proceeding,” as is required by Penal Code § 832.7(b)(8)(A)(ii). Although “specific basis” is undefined, the provisions of Penal Code § 832.7 at issue were added in 2018 through the enactment of SB 1421. SB 1421 amended the CPRA to require disclosure of records related to the investigation of police uses of force and misconduct. (Becerra v. Superior Court (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 897, 916.) “[T]he legislative intent behind Senate Bill 1421 was to provide transparency regarding instances of an officer’s use of significant force and sustained findings of officer misconduct by allowing public access to officer-related records maintained either by law enforcement employers or by any state or local agency with independent law enforcement oversight authority.” (Becerra, 44 Cal.App.5th at 921.) “[I]n amending section 832.7, the Legislature sought to afford the public ‘the right to know all about serious police misconduct,’ to stop concealing incidents where an officer violated civilian rights, and to ‘address and prevent abuses and to weed out the bad actors.’ [Citation.]” (Ibid.)

Further, in Long Beach Police Officers Assn. v. City of Long Beach (2014) 59 Cal.4th 59 (LBPOA), a reporter sought the names of police officers involved in officer-involved shootings. (LBPOA, 59 Cal.4th at 64.) The Supreme Court examined the applicability of the catchall provision in former Government Code § 6255(a), now Government Code § 7922.000, which allows agencies to withhold records by demonstrating that “on the facts of the particular case the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record.” The Supreme Court determined that the balance of interests generally favors disclosure of the names of peace officers involved in on-duty shootings. (Id. at 74.) As a result, “vague safety concerns that apply to all officers involved in shootings” and a “mere assertion of endangerment” do not weigh in favor of withholding of such names. (Ibid.)

Applying the intent of SB 1421 and the principle set forth in LBPOA, the Court finds the detectives’ averments are insufficient to justify withholding of the requested records. SB 1421 was enacted so the public could be informed of potential abusive use of force by police officers. In the interest of transparency, the City cannot rely on vague, non-specific averments that could be asserted in any investigation into a police officer’s use of force to justify withholding records requested under the CPRA. The City does not cite any specific danger posed by the disclosure of the requested records based on the facts and circumstances concerning the shooting of Yang. To the extent witnesses may have to be admonished to respond to police questioning based on their independent recollection, the City presents no evidence demonstrating that any such admonishment would be ineffective to ensure the reliability of the witnesses’ testimony.

For the foregoing reasons, the City does not meet its burden to demonstrate an exemption from disclosure under the CPRA. The City shall produce to petitioner the records that it requested on May 15, 2024.

The petition is GRANTED. Pursuant to Local Rule 3.231(n), petitioner shall prepare, serve, and ultimately file a proposed judgment and proposed writ of mandate in accordance herewith.