The California Supreme Court has left in place a framework that rejects blanket denials of public-records requests for police drone video. Departments must evaluate footage case by case under the California Public Records Act (CPRA). Some categories can remain withheld as investigative material, but routine or non-investigatory clips may have to be released with redactions. This post explores the decision, what it does and doesn’t say, and practical steps for agencies, journalists, and operators.

What Just Happened

The court declined to review an appellate decision in Castañares v. Superior Court arising from a request for a month of drone video from the Chula Vista Police Department. By letting the appellate ruling stand, the Supreme Court effectively requires case-by-case analysis of drone footage under CPRA instead of categorical, across-the-board denials.

The appellate panel had already clarified that drone videos are not automatically exempt as “records of investigation.” Instead, agencies must decide which portions truly implicate an investigation and which do not, then disclose what is releasable (with appropriate redaction) and withhold what is properly exempt. The case was remanded for that individualized review.

Several summaries describe a three-bucket approach often cited in coverage:

1. footage clearly part of an investigative file is exempt;

2. footage used in an investigation but not yet part of a file may be conditionally exempt;

3. non-investigatory “factual inquiry” footage (e.g., public safety checks) is generally not exempt and may require disclosure with redactions.

What The Ruling Does Not Do

• It does not order wholesale release of every police drone clip. CPRA exemptions still apply, including privacy, security, and investigative exemptions, and courts can require redaction instead of full release.

• It does not set a nationwide rule. This is a California framework, though other states and agencies may watch it closely.

• It does not close the book on the facts. Trial courts still conduct the granular review the appellate court required.

Why This Matters to Public Safety Agencies

Modern drone programs generate hours of routine footage: scene safety checks, traffic control, missing-person searches, and infrastructure sweeps. After Castañares, agencies should expect more broad CPRA requests and be prepared to respond without defaulting to a categorical “no.” That means having workflows for classification, retention, and redaction that can stand up in court.

Why This Matters to Journalists and Requesters

Requesters gain a clearer path to some categories of video that had been shielded by blanket denials. The opinion signals that precision helps: narrow your request by timeframe, flight IDs, or incident type, and anticipate redactions for faces, plates, addresses, or sensitive locations consistent with CPRA.

Practical Steps We Recommend (Neutral and Process-Driven)

For Agencies Operating Drones

1. Classify on ingest. Tag each clip as investigative, incident-adjacent, or routine/admin so you can evaluate requests quickly later.

2. Document your review. Keep a CPRA worksheet per request noting the exemption basis and the specific timecodes redacted. Courts look for individualized decisions, not templates.

3. Invest in redaction tools and training. Obscure faces, license plates, house numbers, and minors where disclosure would implicate privacy or safety.

4. Retention and storage. Maintain retention schedules that align with policy and CPRA, with audit logs for access.

For Requesters

1. Scope smart. Define the month, flight numbers, neighborhood, or mission type to reduce search time disputes.

2. Expect partials. CPRA favors segregability—you may receive redacted clips and logs explaining what was withheld and why.

For Operators and Vendors

1. Design for disclosure. Build data stewardship into flight plans and storage. Clear metadata, chain of custody, and exportable redaction paths will save time later.

2. Privacy-by-default. Train pilots to minimize capture of unrelated private spaces when operationally feasible. This reduces downstream redaction and risk.

Ethical and Safety Considerations to Keep Front and Center

• Community trust. Transparent, repeatable processes for handling footage matter as much as the flying itself. Disclosure practices can either strengthen or weaken public confidence.

• Context and harm. Even non-investigatory footage can reveal sensitive routines or locations. Balance public access with reasonable, narrowly tailored redactions.

• Operator safety. Requests and litigation can intersect with active operations. Maintain clear policies for who handles records so flight crews can stay focused on safe missions.

Bottom Line

California’s high court left intact a case-by-case review standard for police drone video under CPRA. Agencies can still protect sensitive, truly investigative content, but the era of blanket denials appears to be over. This is less about taking sides and more about building disciplined workflows that respect transparency, privacy, and operational safety at the same time.

This post summarizes public reporting and legal analyses and is not legal advice. Sources include StateScoop, DroneLife, and case summaries of Castañares v. Superior Court and related commentary.  StateScoop DRONELIFE Best Best & Krieger Courthouse News