Page 3
Court of Appeal:
Request to Decide Moot Media-Access Issues Denied
Justices Won’t Decide if Records Relating to Search Warrants for Examinations of Cell Phones of Protesters Arrested for Violence Were Improperly Sealed, Saying Unsealing Order Renders Discussion Unnecessary
By a MetNews Staff Writer
An appeal from an order only partially unsealing requests by the Sheriff’s Department for warrants to search cellphones belonging to persons arrested for throwing objects at law enforcement officers during a protest must be dismissed as moot given that the judge has now ordered the release of all records sought, the Court of Appeal for this district has held, spurning the request by a media group to determine the merits, nonetheless.
“A published decision would provide guidance for superior courts faced with law enforcement agencies urging secrecy for search warrant records and related proceedings even though secrecy is not permitted by law,” media lawyers argued in their opening brief on appeal.
Div. Two on Wednesday issued an opinion by Justice Victoria M. Chavez that was not certified for publication.
Appellant’s Entreaty
In its reply brief, the Media Coalition—comprised of the First Amendment Coalition and Knock LA—urged the appeals court to exercise its discretion to decide a moot issue involving an important question implicating the public’s interest notwithstanding mootness, saying:
“The Sheriff’s Department does not disagree that this appeal presents novel legal issues that are a matter of statewide public importance because they deal with the application of the statutory, constitutional, and common law right of public and press access to executed search warrant records. Unlike the handful of published California cases deciding the unsealing of search warrant records with a confidential informant or confidential information about secret police investigative techniques, this case centers on routine search warrant records with no confidential informant, no top-secret criminal investigation, and no confidential police investigatory methods.
“Instead, the Superior Court sealed the search warrant records for a very public—and fruitless—investigation of 17 people who were during a public protest against police brutality on a public street, including protesters, a student journalist, and a citizen journalist….The details about their arrest on a public street, their names, the list of all their seized cell phones, and the Sheriff’s Department’s allegation they were engaged in a ‘conspiracy’ to ‘riot’ were all made public by the Sheriff’s Department’s own public incident report. There was nothing confidential or sophisticated about the investigation.”
Media Coalition’s View
Media Coalition recited that in 2022, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Margaret Miller Bernal “granted the department’s request to unseal the search warrant records within days after the filing of the notice of appeal,” reasoning that the department “probably realized” that the judge’s earlier order that year not fully providing access to records sealed in 2020 was “likely to be overturned on appeal.” The appellant commented:
“The department tried to moot this appeal by suddenly asking the Superior Court to unseal its Search Warrant Records without providing any reason for its change of heart. At that point, the statute of limitations on the conspiracy charge had not yet expired. What happened to all the concern about revealing confidential information? It was never there.”
Media Coalition also maintained that the court should decide in a published opinion whether Bernal’s order “excluding the public and press from two ex parte hearings on a motion to unseal court records and sealing the ex parte hearing transcripts violates the First Amendment,” a court rule, and the common law right of access to court proceedings.
Chavez’s Opinion
Chavez rejected the media lawyers’ contention that a published opinion would provide helpful guidance to trial judges, declaring that they “need no such guidance, and that “existing legal authority addresses the issue of sealing warrant records.”
She continued:
“We also find it unlikely there will be a recurrence of the controversy between these parties or that a material question remains for the court’s determination. While we acknowledge the importance of public access to court records, the unique circumstances of this case—where the records were unsealed after the appeal was initiated—make it an unsuitable vehicle for establishing broader precedent.”
The justice added:
“Additionally, an opinion issued now would be an advisory opinion on the initial sealing order and would require us to affirm or reverse an order that has been superseded, potentially creating confusing precedent. Affirming would require the court to rule on the merits of a controversy that no longer exists. Reversing would be logically inconsistent with the current state of affairs (unsealed records) and could not provide any practical relief to the appellant.
“The dismissal for mootness, therefore, respects judicial economy, adheres to the principle that courts should decide actual controversies, and avoids creating potentially problematic precedent based on a resolved dispute.”
Further Contention
The appellant contended that the fact that there is a continued sealing of the two transcripts of in-chambers hearings on the unsealing motion means that the case is not fully moot.
Chavez responded:
“These transcripts concern the trial court’s in camera review of the sealed records and nothing more. Appellant’s goal was an order unsealing the warrant records to review the bases for issuing the warrants and for sealing the records. Since these records have been unsealed, appellant has obtained the primary relief sought and no practical benefit is obtained from unsealing the transcript of the in camera proceedings.”
The case is Media Coalition v. Superior Court, B329695.
Copyright 2024, Metropolitan News Company