OPINION

WIENER, J.

Plaintiff Steven Leiserson appeals the judgment in favor of defendants, the City of San Diego and one of its police officers. At issue is the applicability of Penal Code section 409.5, subdivision (d), which limits the authorization given to law enforcement and other designated government officials under subdivision (a) of that same section to cordon off and close a disaster area to the general public. The statutory limitation prevents law enforcement from interfering with any member of the news media who wishes to enter the closed area. The statute represents the Legislature's effort to strike a balance between the right of the press to gather important news and the obligation of police and fire personnel to respond quickly and effectively to major disasters. Although we discuss the interesting questions presented by the statute, we rest our decision on the mundane. We decide substantial evidence supports the trial court's finding that law enforcement reasonably believed that the disaster site was also the scene of a possible crime and accordingly section 409.5, subdivision (d), did not apply to guarantee Leiserson access to the crime scene. We therefore affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On September 25, 1978, at approximately 9 a.m., a Pacific Southwest Airlines jetliner collided in mid-air with a small private plane and crashed in a residential section of central San Diego, killing all on board and a number of persons on the ground. Leiserson was employed as a television news cameraman by KFMB-TV Channel 8 at the time. On the morning of September 25, he was instructed to drive to the scene of the crash to film the emergency operations. Arriving between 9:15 and 9:20, Leiserson spent approximately the next 30 minutes moving about the crash site shooting video tape.

Defendant Frederick Edwards, a police officer employed by the City of San Diego, was patrolling near the crash site on the morning of the 25th. Officer Edwards arrived at the site within minutes of the crash and helped several people escape damaged or burning houses. He then positioned himself at the intersection of Dwight and Nile Streets, near the eastern edge of the crash site, in an effort to keep spectators away from the area in which emergency crews were operating. Sergeant William Capps arrived within 15 minutes to supervise the police operations at the site. He instructed Edwards to keep back all nonemergency personnel.

Approximately a half-hour after he arrived, Leiserson was filming the wreckage from a point on Dwight Street just west of Nile when he was approached by Officer Edwards. Edwards instructed Leiserson to leave the immediate crash site and directed him to an area on the east side of Nile Street where a number of spectators were standing. According to Edwards, he told Leiserson the area was dangerous because of downed power lines. Leiserson responded that he had a right to be in the area filming and requested Edwards' badge number. He then moved away from Edwards in the general direction Edwards had pointed but stopped behind the house on the southwest corner of Dwight and Nile. Officer Edwards again approached and directed that Leiserson continue moving away from the crash site. He threatened to arrest Leiserson if he failed to comply. Leiserson then continued down Nile Street a short distance to a paved walkway which parallels Dwight Street. The walkway roughly marked the southern edge of the crash site. At the entrance to the walkway on Nile, Leiserson encountered Howard Blunt, a retired private security guard who had volunteered to help police with crowd control. Blunt had been instructed by Edwards to keep nonemergency personnel from using the walkway. Blunt told Leiserson he could not enter the walkway but Leiserson ignored the warning and pushed past him.

When Edwards was informed by another officer that Leiserson had proceeded down the walkway, the two officers followed and arrested him for failing to comply with the lawful order of a police officer. (§ 148.2, subd. 2.) Edwards took Leiserson to a police command post established a short distance from the crash site and later booked him in county jail. He was released within several hours.

Edwards admitted recognizing Leiserson as a member of the press but explained that he did not distinguish between press and nonpress persons in terms of excluding them from the immediate crash site. The only bases articulated by Edwards for excluding Leiserson were the orders he had received from Sergeant Capps and his concern for Leiserson's safety. He specifically testified he did not recall having seen Leiserson pick up or touch anything or in any way disturb the crash site.

Sergeant Capps testified that shortly after he arrived, he established a cordoned-off area for members of the press near the northwest corner of Boundary and Dwight Streets approximately 50 to 60 feet from the crash site. This area was closer to the site than the general public was allowed but was considered by Sergeant Capps to be safe for nonemergency personnel. Leiserson, however, was never informed by Edwards or anyone else of the existence of the designated press area.

Capps also testified that he had not been at the scene very long when he was approached by two California Highway Patrol (CHP) officers who told him they understood that California Lieutenant Governor Mervyn Dymally had been a passenger aboard the plane and that threats had recently been made on his life. They believed the crash may have been caused by a bomb explosion. Capps testified he never saw either CHP officer before or after the incident nor did he receive any additional information suggesting that the crash was anything other than an accident. Officer Edwards was never told of the CHP officers' story and testified that he never received any information indicating that the plane crash might have been the result of a criminal offense.

The case was heard by the trial court sitting without a jury. Based on Leiserson's earlier request for a statement of decision, Judge Carter filed an "Intended Decision" in which he explained his conclusion that Edwards acted properly in ordering Leiserson away from the crash site and in later arresting him when he failed to comply with that order. In his view, Edwards and Capps reasonably believed the crash site might constitute the scene of a crime — from which members of the press have traditionally been excluded. The judge also felt that the right of press access guaranteed by section 409.5(d) did not extend to situations where the police officer reasonably believes that members of the press would be endangered by entering the disaster area. He further noted that press access sufficient to comply with the statute had been afforded by Sergeant Capps' designation of a cordoned-off press area within 60 feet of the crash site. Judgment was then proposed to be entered in favor of defendants.

Leiserson filed a number of specific objections to the "Intended Decision." A hearing on those objections was commenced by Judge Carter but was never completed. The continued hearing was scheduled to resume in three weeks. In the interim Judge Carter died. Defendants then moved under Code of Civil Procedure section 635 to have judgment entered by Judge Duffy, acting presiding judge of the superior court, in conformity with Judge Carter's "Intended Decision." Defendants represented to the court that during the first part of the hearing which occurred before it was continued, Judge Carter indicated "his decision would remain the same" although he ". . . would entertain argument with respect to changing some of the language in the intended decision." Over Leiserson's objection, Judge Duffy then entered judgment against him.

DISCUSSION I

(1) Leiserson initially contends that because Judge Carter died before the hearing on objections to the "Intended Decision" had been completed, Judge Duffy improperly signed and entered the judgment in conforming with the "Intended Decision." He relies principally on this court's decision in Armstrong v. Picquelle (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 122 [ 203 Cal.Rptr. 552] as well as Swift v. Daniels (1980) 103 Cal.App.3d 263 [ 162 Cal.Rptr. 863] . Both Armstrong and Swift, however, involve the very different situation where, although a tentative decision was rendered, no statement of decision was ever prepared or signed by the trial judge. (See especially Armstrong, supra, 157 Cal.App.3d at p. 127.) As the Swift court explained, section 635 cannot be invoked to defeat the principle that "the judge who hears the evidence should be the one to decide the case." No violence is done to that principle here because Judge Carter's "Intended Decision" is in reality the "statement of decision" initially requested by Leiserson pursuant to section 632.

We recognize that the fact that a party may file objections to a proposed statement of decision pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 232(d) necessarily implies that the statement may be modified, perhaps even to the point of changing the result. We are presented here, however, with a situation in which there is no indication such modification was contemplated or ever considered. Judge Carter's "Intended Decision" — in reality a proposed statement of decision — provides a complete and adequate basis for appellate review. In such circumstances, we hold a presiding judge is empowered by section 635 to sign and enter the judgment.

II

Section 409.5(a) authorizes police officers and other designated government officials to cordon off and close a disaster area to the general public where the disaster has created "a menace to the public health or safety." Subdivision (d) of that section, however, limits application of subdivision (a) to persons other than "duly authorized representative[s]" of various news media organizations. ( Ante, fn. 2.) Relying on subdivision (d), Leiserson asserts that members of the press have an unrestricted right to enter a disaster site for the purpose of news gathering so long as they do not interfere with emergency crews' performance of their duties. Since there is no evidence in the present case of any such interference, Leiserson claims that Edwards' order to leave the area was unlawful.

Not surprisingly, neither Sergeant Capps nor Officer Edwards was familiar with the substance of section 409.5. It does not appear that their decision to cordon off the crash site was consciously based on the authorization contained in subdivision (a) and it is clear they were unaware of the limitations on their authority which were contained in subdivision (d). Instead, the officers seem to have taken the actions they perceived to be reasonable under the circumstances.

There is no doubt in the present case that Leiserson was "a duly authorized representative of [a] . . . television station" guaranteed certain rights of access to disaster sites by section 409.5(d). More importantly, Edwards recognized him as such. Thus, the singular issue we must decide is the extent of access guaranteed by the statute to Leiserson.

Defendants argued and the trial court articulated three independent justifications for Officer Edwards' order excluding Leiserson from the crash site. The first involved Edwards' perception that the crash site posed a safety hazard to members of the press. Under the trial court's theory, section 409.5(d) gives the press access to a disaster site only if police personnel determine that such access would be safe.

The problem with this argument is that pursuant to subdivision (a) of section 409.5, the power to exclude the general public from a disaster site only arises where the disaster creates "a menace to the public health or safety." Thus the press access provision of subdivision (d) assumes the existence of an already-determined safety hazard. Notwithstanding such a safety hazard, the Legislature has concluded that the public's right to know is more important.

Defendants protest that they have a duty to protect the public and might face civil liability if members of the media were injured after having been granted access to a disaster site. We assume there is more than an element of advocacy in the argument since cities' views of a police officer's duty seem to expand and contract depending on the contested issue. (Compare Davidson v. City of Westminster (1982) 32 Cal.3d 197 [ 185 Cal.Rptr. 252, 649 P.2d 894] (no duty to protect potential crime victim); Harris v. Smith (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 100 [ 203 Cal.Rptr. 541] (no duty to protect other motorists from drunk driver); see generally Hucko v. City of San Diego (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 520 [ 224 Cal.Rptr. 552].) In any event, the statute in no way precludes a police officer from recommending to press personnel that they not enter a disaster site. Presumably their entry after such a warning would constitute assumption of the risk of injury and eliminate any possibility of civil liability.

The trial court also referred to Sergeant Capps' testimony regarding the establishment of a cordoned-off "press area" at one edge of the crash site, from which the general public was also excluded. The court's decision suggests it viewed the designation of the area as sufficient access to satisfy the statute. We, however, have serious concerns about how a designated press area, even if located within the disaster area from which the general public is excluded, comports with a statute which specifically authorizes representatives of the press to enter closed areas. Defendants respond that it is unrealistic to believe that the large numbers of media personnel who will normally be on hand to cover a major disaster can have unrestricted access to the disaster area without interfering with the work of emergency crews. They note that particularly in a case such as this where the disaster is confined to a relatively small geographical area, the mere presence of large numbers of reporters and photographers will necessarily hamper police, medical and firefighting personnel.

We do not believe that in enacting section 409.5(d), the Legislature intended that media access be unrestricted when the presence of reporters or photographers actually interferes with the work of emergency crews. Leiserson seems to concede as much but argues that exclusion cannot be ordered until the actual interference occurs, and then only individually as to the press member who interfered. This interpretation would require that the police initially stand by and permit unrestricted access even when actual interference was inevitable, thereby increasing the risk of personal injury and property damage and perhaps endangering the emergency personnel. Such an interpretation, putting a premium on the lack of foresight, is unrealistic and unwarranted.

On the other hand, we deal here with a statute which represents the Legislature's considered judgment that members of the news media must be afforded special access to disaster sites in order that they may properly perform their function of informing the public. (See 67 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 535, 539 (1984); see generally Branzburg v. Hayes (1972) 408 U.S. 665, 706 [33 L.Ed.2d 626, 654, 92 S.Ct. 2646].) Accordingly, press representatives must be given unrestricted access to disaster sites unless police personnel at the scene reasonably determine that such unrestricted access will interfere with emergency operations. If such a determination is made, the restrictions on media access may be imposed for only so long and only to such an extent as is necessary to prevent actual interference. This means that members of the press must be accommodated with whatever limited access to the site may be afforded without interference. Here, for instance, the special press area designated by Sergeant Capps constitutes an attempt at such an accommodation. Others might include unrestricted access to the site for some limited number of persons, apportioned on some equitable basis. (See, e.g., Los Angeles Free Press, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1970) 9 Cal.App.3d 448, 456 [ 88 Cal.Rptr. 605].) We assume that the police and press will find it to their mutual advantage to cooperate in such circumstances, consistent with the legislative goal that the maximum possible press access be provided.

The record in the present case, however, fails to demonstrate facts sufficient to justify Leiserson's exclusion from the crash site on this theory. The defendants failed to show: (1) that unrestricted press access would have actually interfered with the emergency crews' performance of their duties; and (2) that the designated press area was the maximum access possible under the circumstances. In any event, even if limited access were theoretically permissible in this situation, it would only have been adequate as applied to Leiserson had he been made aware of the designated press area established by Sergeant Capps. Here, Edwards never directed Leiserson to the designated press area or even informed him of its existence.

Finally, the trial court relied on Sergeant Capps' testimony regarding the information provided him by two CHP officers in concluding that Edwards' exclusion order was valid because the crash site was the scene of a possible crime, i.e., the assassination of California Lieutenant Governor Mervyn Dymally. Defendants assert that section 409.5 only authorizes exclusion of the general public based on the occurrence of a disaster. Therefore, the limitation on this power to exclude — subdivision (d)'s guarantee of press access — only applies where the exclusion is based solely on the site's status as a disaster scene. Here, defendants argue, Sergeant Capps' order to exclude nonemergency personnel was not based solely on the crash site being a disaster area subject to closure under section 409.5, but was also founded on his concern for protecting the scene of a possible crime. Such scenes, according to defendants, have traditionally been subject to exclusion orders which apply to the press as well as the general public. (See generally Los Angeles Free Press, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 9 Cal.App.3d at p. 455.)

Leiserson does not contest that the police can reasonably exclude members of the press from an area in which the commission of a crime is being investigated. He does argue, however, that neither Sergeant Capps nor Officer Edwards could reasonably have believed the crash site to be the scene of a crime based on the information known to them at the time Leiserson was arrested. Accordingly Leiserson concludes that Edwards' exclusion order cannot be justified by a "scene of the crime" exception.

We emphasize that in responding to Leiserson's argument, we confront a finding of fact by the trial judge indicating he believed Sergeant Capps' testimony regarding the CHP officers' report. (3) "Where a factual determination is based on live witness testimony or review of physical evidence, there is every reason to believe a trial court's resolution will be more accurate than that of an appellate court which received no firsthand exposure to the evidence. Thus, the substantial evidence standard of review appropriately accords considerable deference to a trial court's factual findings." ( Hurtado v. Statewide Home Loan Co. (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 1019, 1024 [ 213 Cal.Rptr. 712].)

(2b) Frankly we have pondered the question whether the "Mervyn Dymally incident" was in whole or part a post hoc justification for an exclusion order which was in reality based on reasonable, but nonetheless legally erroneous, grounds for concern of the safety of the press. Our suspicion has been reinforced by the lack of names or any other confirmatory evidence. In addition, Capps admitted to having no awareness of section 409.5 at the time he issued the exclusion order. Nonetheless, consistent with the institutional deference we must accord trial court findings of fact, we conclude the trial court's decision regarding the investigation of a possible crime is supported by substantial evidence. Sergeant Capps' testimony is sufficient for the trial court to have concluded that Capps reasonably believed the crash site was the scene of a possible crime and therefore justified the exclusion of press personnel from the immediate area.

The fact that Edwards was never told by Capps of the suspected crime is not determinative. Capps ordered Edwards to keep all nonemergency personnel away from the crash site. The order did not distinguish between members of the press and the general public. A superior officer in the police chain of command need not explain all the reasons for an order to his subordinates for the order to be a valid one. (4) (See fn. 12.) It is sufficient if Capps reasonably believed that the crash site was the scene of a possible crime and on that basis ordered Edwards to exclude press and public alike.

Thus, although two of the three justifications relied on by the trial court for Officer Edwards' exclusion order were insufficient, the court's findings with respect to the third justification are supported by substantial evidence. We therefore affirm the judgment.

DISPOSITION

Judgment affirmed. The parties to bear their respective costs.

Kremer, P.J., and Work, J., concurred.

On September 3, 1986, the opinion was modified to read as printed above.