Tristia Bauman, directing attorney at the law foundation, said this is a win for the people\u2019s right to access public records.<\/p>\n
\u201cSome of our concern was that if there is no declaratory relief, then governments are essentially given the green light to declare something as exempt and then destroy it with no oversight and no way to check whether that was appropriate,\u201d Bauman told San Jos\u00e9 Spotlight. \u201cSo with this ability to get declaratory relief, we can prevent governments from doing that.\u201d<\/p>\n
Under the California Public Records Act<\/a>, cities are required to conduct a thorough search of records when a member of the public requests information. If they withhold documents, they must specify which documents and the reason why.<\/p>\n The\u00a0law still allows documents related to an investigation to be kept confidential.<\/p>\n The genesis of the lawsuit began in 2018, when the law foundation\u00a0heard police were harassing homeless people and destroying their property during encampment sweeps in Gilroy. What set this sweep apart were stories told to the law foundation and Disability Rights California about police destroying medical equipment, canes and walkers.<\/p>\n In 2018 and 2019, the law foundation filed multiple requests for records under the California Public Records Act to get more information on how these sweeps were being conducted, including police body camera footage. Gilroy initially denied sharing a majority of its footage, claiming it was protected due to its investigative nature. The law foundation sued the city and later found out Gilroy had destroyed footage that was more than a year old.<\/p>\n Gilroy City Attorney Andrew Faber said the law foundation\u2019s original records request in 2018 wasn\u2019t specifically regarding sweeps, but related to other aspects of homeless behavior.<\/p>\n \u201cAt the time neither the city nor the law foundation thought that it requested body cam footage (as the 2019 request explicitly did). The city did furnish body cam footage in response to the 2019 request,\u201d Faber told San Jos\u00e9 Spotlight. \u201cIt withheld 10 minutes of such footage as being privileged investigatory material, and the trial court agreed that was properly withheld.\u201d<\/p>\n The ruling took into account that cities could destroy records, but that wouldn\u2019t negate governments from being held accountable even if records no longer exist.<\/p>\n Neel Chatterjee, attorney at King & Spalding and former law foundation board member, said this is an logical extension of California Public Records Act law.<\/p>\n \u201cIt isn\u2019t moot when people destroy documents, that the courts can issue a ruling that the way a search was done was wrong,\u201d Chatterjee told San Jos\u00e9 Spotlight. \u201cIt allows the requesters to hold the government accountable for its improper actions, even when the documents don\u2019t exist anymore.\u201d<\/p>\n Gilroy did not produce any specific reasons for withholding records other than invoking investigative privileges, he said.<\/p>\n \u201cIf you\u2019re investigating a crime, there\u2019s some specific crime you\u2019re investigating,\u201d Chatterjee said. \u201cSo asserting a blanket privilege doesn\u2019t make any sense, because you\u2019re asserting it for every single thing you\u2019re doing in every location.\u201d<\/p>\n![\"Keep](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/1769027829_854_interactive-184632509590.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n