Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit; September 4, 2018; Federal Appellate Court
The Court, referencing its earlier decision in *United States v. Johnson*, grants the government's motions for protective orders regarding body-worn camera footage and police personnel data, aligning the current case with the principles established in Johnson. In that case, the Court found that the government had not adequately justified several proposed restrictions on the defendant's use and disclosure of body-worn camera footage, including shifting the burden of redaction to defense counsel and limitations on sharing the footage with colleagues or retaining it after acquittal. However, it did find good cause for preventing public disclosure of the footage. Following *Johnson*, the Court instructed the parties to propose protective orders, but an agreement was not reached, leading to Kingsbury's opposition to the government's motions.
Kingsbury requests that the protective order from Johnson apply to all body-worn camera footage except one video, which the government claims depicts no civilians. The Court grants the protective order but denies the request to limit its scope, emphasizing that the privacy interests of all individuals depicted, including police officers, justify the protective order's comprehensive application. The need to protect sensitive information and privacy remains paramount, similar to the reasoning used in Johnson.
The Court highlighted in Johnson that the D.C. Code and Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) regulations reflect a policy judgment recognizing that body-worn camera materials often raise privacy concerns. Specifically, D.C. Code § 5-116.32 mandates MPD to establish standards for public access to such recordings, and D.C. Mun. Regs. tit. 24, 3902.5(b), 6 stipulates that access to body-worn camera footage requires a request under D.C.'s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The Court expressed reluctance to allow Kingsbury to bypass these privacy protections without a specific necessity. Privacy exemptions under FOIA include personal information that could lead to unwarranted invasions of privacy. Consequently, the Court will issue a protective order limiting the use and disclosure of body-worn camera footage strictly to Kingsbury's case.
Additionally, the government requested a protective order for personnel data concerning police-officer witnesses, specifically related to internal disciplinary proceedings. This proposed order included several restrictions similar to those denied for body-worn camera materials in Johnson, such as prohibiting defense counsel from using the data in other cases and requiring redaction of sensitive information. While Kingsbury did not oppose a protective order for these materials, he suggested a more limited version akin to the one in Johnson. The Court agreed to enter Kingsbury's proposed protective order, noting that both body-worn camera footage and personnel data present similar privacy issues. Protecting police officers’ reputations and ensuring that irrelevant disciplinary matters do not become public is deemed significant.
Disclosure of disciplinary actions against police officers is deemed a violation of their privacy and reasonable expectations regarding the confidentiality of performance assessments by superiors. However, the Court determines that this concern is sufficiently addressed by the disclosure restrictions established in the case of Johnson, permitting disclosure only when it aids in investigating Kingsbury's case or in connection with another case represented by the Federal Public Defender. The previously rejected restrictions on PPMS/CADRPTS data are not applicable, meaning that defense counsel is not required to redact this data and can share it within the Federal Public Defender's Office, utilize it in other cases, and retain it if acquitted or if charges are dismissed. Consequently, the government's motions for protective orders are granted with these modifications, and corresponding protective orders have been issued. Although the defendant in Johnson later pleaded guilty, preventing the entry of a protective order, the government had requested a protective order for all body-worn camera footage without addressing Kingsbury's reliance on Johnson in its opposition. The government did not file a reply to this opposition. Additionally, similar to the findings in Huthnance, the District has demonstrated good cause for a protective order regarding police personnel data in civil cases, as such disclosures are regulated by statute and protected from disclosure under the D.C. Freedom of Information Act due to privacy concerns.
