Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Records topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
San Jose committee upholds denial of public‑records appeal for CHP form and body‑worn video
Summary
The San Jose Rules Committee voted 5‑0 to deny an appeal by Thomas McInnis seeking release of body‑worn camera footage and a CHP Form 180. Staff said the records are investigatory files and the CHP form is exempt from disclosure under a state court ruling and vehicle‑code restrictions.
The San Jose Rules Committee voted 5‑0 to deny a public‑records appeal by Thomas McInnis seeking release of San Jose Police Department body‑worn camera footage and a California Highway Patrol (CHP) Form 180.
The committee’s decision followed a staff presentation explaining that both the body‑worn video and the CHP form were withheld as investigatory files and that the CHP form is further protected from disclosure under state law and court precedent. Jessica Lowry, the city’s open government manager, said the incident had been logged as a parking violation; because it was not one of the qualifying crimes listed in the statutory exemption described to the committee, the department could keep the investigatory materials confidential.
The appeal concerned two categories of records: body‑worn camera footage generated by San Jose Police officers and a CHP Form 180 in the police department’s possession. Lowry told the committee that investigatory files compiled by a local police agency may be withheld under the Public Records Act exemption described in the staff memo. She said the CHP Form 180 also contains personal information originating from Department of Motor Vehicles records and cited a Court of Appeal decision finding those CHP forms exempt from disclosure.
Lieutenant Paul Hamblin of the San Jose Police Department confirmed that officers activate body‑worn cameras during enforcement and call‑for‑service contacts, so video footage could exist for the incident described in the appeal. Lowry told the committee that the statutory and regulatory scheme limits who may obtain DMV‑origin data and that local law enforcement is not authorized to release that DMV data to third parties.
Committee members asked whether an insurance company or qualified party could request the CHP form; staff replied that the statutes allocate disclosure authority to the Department of Motor Vehicles and that local agencies are not to initiate DMV releases. The staff recommendation to affirm the denial of the second appeal was adopted by a 5‑0 vote. The appellant, Thomas McInnis, was not present for the hearing.
The committee’s action was procedural: it affirmed the city’s records denial under the exemptions cited by staff. No additional direction to staff to change the city’s position or to pursue disclosure was adopted.
