ACLU of Southern California v. Superior Court of Los Angeles
- EPIC to Maryland Legislators: Security Questions Need Upgrade: EPIC Interim Associate Director and Policy DIrector Caitriona Fitzgerald will testify today before the Maryland Senate Committee on Finance in support of stronger authentication methods to protect consumers. Senate Bill 185 requires financial institutions who choose to use security questions as a authentication method to provide customers with more than one security question option. EPIC noted that there are plenty of alternative authentication methods available today and that financial institutions truly should no longer be using basic security questions. "The requirement that your password contain one uppercase letter, one lowercase letter, one symbol, and one number is meaningless if all that is required to bypass that password is your pet’s name," EPIC told the Committee. But, EPIC said, if security questions are going to be used, institutions should ensure that multiple question options are given, and that users are permitted to answer the questions with randomly-generated password-like answers rather than factual, semantic answers. (Feb. 9, 2021)
- Tech Companies Block Washington State Privacy Law: Last minute lobbying by big tech companies blocked passage of the Washington Privacy Act. The state privacy law have given consumers the right to access, correct and delete their personal data held by tech firms. EPIC and a broad coalition of privacy groups backed a comprehensive bill that would include, as privacy laws typically do, the right of consumers to bring legal action but that was opposed by industry groups. The Washington legislature did pass a modest bill limiting the government use of facial recognition technology. EPIC has long supported federal baseline legislation and the creation of a data protection agency. EPIC has also called for a moratorium on face surveillance. The EPIC State Policy Project monitors privacy bills nationwide. (Mar. 13, 2020) More top news »
- EFF-ACLU Opening Brief
- City of Los Angelas Answer Brief
- County of Los Angelas Answer Brief
- EFF-ACLU Reply Brief
- EFF-ACLU Petition for Review
- City of Los Angelas and County of Los Angelas Answer Brief
- EFF-ACLU Reply Brief
- Amici in support of Petition:
- EPIC Amicus Letter
- Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press Amicus Letter
- Sacramento Valley Mirror, Lake County News, People's Vanguard of Davis, Woodland Record, Rio Dell Times, Ferndale Enterprise, LION Publishing Group & Michael Robertson Amicus Letter
- Northern California Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists Amicus Letter
- Am. Civil Liberties Union Found. of S. California v. Superior Court of Los Angeles Cty., 236 Cal. App. 4th 673 (May 11, 2015)
The California Supreme Court will decide whether to review the Court of Appeals decision in ACLU Foundation of Southern California v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County. The Appeals Court agreed with the trial court, holding that records generated by Automated License Plate Readers (ALPR) are investigative records and thus exempt under California Government Code § 6254(f).
The relevant part of § 5254(f) authorizes law enforcement to withhold "records of . . . investigations conducted by . . . any state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local police agency . . . ." At issue is whether the functions performed by ALPR systems are "investigations" within the meaning of § 6254(f).
The case arises from separate open records request by the ACLU of Southern California and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) pertaining to the use Automated License Plate Readers by the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) and the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (LASD). Both ACLU and EFF filed open records requests for the policies, procedures, training, and practices related to the use of ALPR. Additionally, both organizations also requested a week’s worth of data from the ALPRs. The LAPD and LASD agreed to produce the policies, procedures, etc. but withheld the ALPR data citing, among other things, the exemption for records of law enforcement investigations. The trial court agreed with the LAPD and LASD and held that the ALPR data was exempted under California Government Code § 6254(f).
ACLU of Southern LA’s Petition to California Appeals Court
The ACLU and EFF petitioned the California Appeals Court, arguing that the Superior Court erred in holding the ALPR data exempt under § 6254(f). The petitioners argued that 1) the Superior Court misunderstood the technology when they determined that ALPR data constitutes investigative record because the ALPR data collection was generally targeted; and 2) the holding does not fit with the common understanding of "investigation" because it means all vehicles in the LA area are constantly under investigation. The petitioners argued that data collected indiscriminately is not a record of an investigation. The petitioners argued that to count all ALPR data as an investigative record would inappropriately expand the scope of § 6254(f).
California Appeals Court Ruling
The California Appeals Court upheld the Superior Court’s ruling that ALPR data was exempt from release because the data was an investigatory record under § 6254(f). The Appeals Court found that the scanning of license plates performed by the ALPR systems are investigations within the meaning of §6254(f) because they are “conducted for the purpose of uncovering information surrounding the commission of the violation [of law] and its agency.” Specifically, the ALPR systems scan plates and immediately check the plate scans against a “hot list” of plates associated with suspected crimes. The scans and hot list checks, according to the Appeals Court, are records of investigations. The Court adds in support of its position that these records exist only because the LAPD and LASD are trying to “uncover information surrounding the commission of a violation of law and its agency.”
The Appeals Court found that just because the ALPR systems scanned all plates in view does not mean the ALPRs are not performing an investigation. The court explains that “in exempting records of . . . investigations conducted by law enforcement agencies, § 6254 does not distinguish between investigations to determine if a crime has been or is about to be committed and those that are undertaken once criminal conduct is apparent.” Additionally, the court argued that retention of millions of license plate scans for extended periods of time does not strip an investigative record of its exempt status.
California Supreme Court
In June 2015, the ACLU and the EFF petitioned the California Supreme Court to review the decision of the Appeals. The California Supreme Court agreed to review the case in July 2015.
EPIC has a long-standing record of protecting open record laws and access by the public to government records. Additionally, EPIC advocates for stronger privacy against surveillance technology and against mass surveillance of the public. ACLU v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County is particularly significant and relevant to EPIC’s mission because of its potential to extend the California’s open record exemption for law enforcement investigative records to all indiscriminate mass surveillance conducted by California authorities. Such a broad exemption would undermine the purpose of open government laws and impede the public’s ability to learn about potential abuse and misuse of mass surveillance techniques.
California Supreme Court, No. S227106Merits Stage
California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3
Los Angelas County Superior Court
Share this page:
Subscribe to the EPIC Alert
The EPIC Alert is a biweekly newsletter highlighting emerging privacy issues.