California First Amendment Coalition v. Calderon

Citations: 138 F.3d 1298; 1998 WL 202264Docket: No. 97-15493

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; April 28, 1998; Federal Appellate Court

Lead Opinion SummaryLead Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Arthur Calderon, Warden of San Quentin Prison, and James H. Gomez, Director of the California Department of Corrections, appeal a district court injunction that mandates allowing witnesses to executions by lethal injection to observe the process from the time the inmate is secured on the gurney until just after death is pronounced. This injunction was issued in a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by the California First Amendment Coalition and the Society of Professional Journalists, Northern California Chapter, asserting violations of the public's First Amendment right to observe government proceedings during the execution of William Bonin on February 23, 1996. The court has jurisdiction per 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and has reversed the injunction.

Historically, California executions were public until 1858, when they moved indoors but required the presence of at least 12 reputable citizens. The current witness statute, Cal. Penal Code § 3605, reflects this earlier law. Although there is no legal requirement for press attendance, both media and the public have traditionally had access to executions. Access has enabled media to report on the condemned's final moments. Previous methods, such as hanging and lethal gas, allowed full visibility of the execution process for witnesses, fostering public debate on capital punishment. Currently, California only conducts lethal injections, with regulations established in 1992 under San Quentin Institution Procedure No. 770, which restricts witness observation. Under this procedure, witnesses can only view the execution after the condemned is strapped to the gurney and the IV saline solution is running, contrasting with earlier practices that allowed observation from the time the condemned was escorted to the execution chamber.

Calderon indicated that allowing witnesses to observe execution team members for twenty minutes increases the risk of harassment and intimidation towards the officers and their families, which could jeopardize their ability to perform their duties safely. This concern for safety led to the implementation of Procedure 770, which was used only during the execution of William Bonin on February 23, 1996. Witnesses were permitted into the observation room only after Bonin was secured to the gurney and the IV was in place. They were not present for the execution order and learned of Bonin's death several minutes later. 

The California First Amendment Coalition and the Society of Professional Journalists filed suit against Calderon and Gomez, claiming violations of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to observe significant parts of the execution. In April 1996, the district court granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting restrictions on witness observation from the time the IV tubes were inserted until shortly after death. Calderon appealed this ruling and sought an emergency stay, which was denied. By February 1997, the court granted the Coalition's motion for summary judgment and issued a permanent injunction allowing witnesses to observe the execution from just before the condemned was immobilized until after death. Calderon subsequently appealed this permanent injunction.

The standards of review for the summary judgment grant are de novo, meaning the appellate court will review the matter without deference to the trial court's findings, assessing whether there were genuine issues of material fact and if the law was correctly applied.

An association can sue on behalf of its members if: (a) the members have standing to sue individually; (b) the interests being protected align with the organization’s purpose; and (c) individual member participation is not necessary for the claim or relief sought. The Coalition, representing 250 journalists, meets these criteria, as its members have previously covered executions and may face harm from restrictive procedures that impede their reporting, which is protected under the First Amendment.

The First Amendment safeguards news gathering, but this protection does not extend to a right of special access to information beyond what is available to the public. The Supreme Court has ruled that the press does not have a constitutional right to access prisons or inmates beyond what the general public is afforded. Previous cases upheld regulations restricting media access to prisons, affirming that such policies do not infringe upon the First Amendment if they do not deny access to information available to the public.

The district court and the Coalition argue that executions, as significant state actions, warrant different treatment than standard prison operations, citing cases that affirm the press's right to observe governmental proceedings. These precedents highlight the First Amendment's role in ensuring public access to important judicial processes, suggesting a distinction in the context of executions compared to routine prison regulations.

In Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, the court addressed the issue of media access to executions, particularly in the context of First Amendment rights. The ruling acknowledges that while public interest in executions is significant, the First Amendment does not obligate states, like Texas, to permit televised executions. The court emphasizes that the media's role is to inform the public, but it does not extend to unrestricted access to prisons or execution events beyond what is available to the general public. 

Previous case law indicates that any potential right for the press to access executions hinges on public rights, which have not been firmly established. The Supreme Court's decisions suggest that restrictions on media access are permissible and can serve the public good. Specifically, the court references Holden v. Minnesota, where a complete ban on media access to executions was upheld, reinforcing legislative authority to regulate such access.

Ultimately, the court concludes that Procedure 770, which allows limited witness access to executions from the point the IV is inserted until the inmate is pronounced dead, does not infringe upon the First Amendment rights of the press or the public, as it still provides some level of information regarding the execution process.

Procedure 770 permits limited access to executions while prioritizing the safety of the execution team and institutional security, without negating the First Amendment rights of the public and press to view such events. The limitations outlined in Procedure 770 are justified by concerns for prison security and the orderly conduct of executions, and courts typically defer to corrections officials' expertise unless there is substantial evidence of exaggerated responses. In this case, no such evidence was found, leading to the conclusion that First Amendment rights are not violated by the procedure. The excerpt references California Penal Code 3605, which allows for specific individuals to witness executions, but historically, the press has been granted access beyond these provisions. Procedure 770 allocates 17 out of 50 observation spaces for media representatives, who then report their findings in a press conference following the execution. The legal standard for standing requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that their interests fall within the protective scope of the relevant statute or constitutional rights. The action is reversed and remanded for judgment in favor of Calderon.

Procedure 770 does not infringe upon the Coalition’s First Amendment rights to gather news, although the Coalition claims an interest that is arguably protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has established that public access is warranted if (1) a proceeding has historically been open to the press and public, and (2) such access is crucial for the judicial process and government functioning. The district court affirmed that both historical precedent and the functional significance of public access support media observation of executions in California, which has a longstanding tradition of allowing such observation. Calderon expressed no intent to further limit press observation beyond what Procedure 770 permits; however, any attempt to impose greater restrictions would necessitate a reevaluation of potential First Amendment violations.