AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA v. S.C. (CITY OF LOS ANGELES)Real Party in Interest, County of Los Angeles, Response to Amicus Curiae BriefCal.August 11, 2016SUPREME COURT PILED SUPREME COURT COPY ust 0m 8227106 | IN THE SUPREME COURTOF CALIFORNIA "frank & McGuire Clerk Depuyy CRO g.25(0) AMERICANCIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA and ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION, Petitioners, Vv. SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Respondent, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,andthe LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT,andthe CITY OF LOS ANGELES,and the LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT, Real Parties in Interest. After A Decision by The Court OfAppeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three (No. B259392) Los Angeles County Superior Court (No. BS143004) Hon. James C. Chalfont, Judge Presiding ANSWERTO AMICUS BRIEF OF SENATOR JERRY HILL Tomas A. Guterres, Esq. (SBN 152729) *James C. Jardin (SBN 187482) COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART LLP 1100 El Centro St. South Pasadena, CA 91030 (626) 243-1100, Fax (626) 243-1111 tguterres@ccmslaw.com jjardin@ccmslaw.com Attorneys for Real Party in Interest, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 5227106 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA AMERICANCIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA and ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION, Petitioners, V. SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Respondent, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,andthe LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT,andthe CITY OF LOS ANGELES,and the LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT, Real Parties in Interest. After A Decision by The Court OfAppeal, Second Appellate District, Division Three (No. B259392) Los Angeles County Superior Court (No. BS143004) Hon. James C. Chalfont, Judge Presiding ANSWERTO AMICUS BRIEF OF SENATOR JERRY HILL Tomas A. Guterres, Esq. (SBN 152729) *James C. Jardin (SBN 187482) COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART LLP 1100 El Centro St. South Pasadena, CA 91030 (626) 243-1100, Fax (626) 243-1111 tguterres@ccmslaw.com jjardin@ccmslaw.com Attorneys for Real Party in Interest, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION...cccceceesesecsesescsesesssscsescssssessssssescsnscerseeesseatsasetacaeecees 1 DISCUSSIONoccccecessseeseetesssessscseseseesscsesesssssusavsrecstesesseesesersasstasseesees 1 I, THE PLAIN LANGUAGEOFSB 34 REQUIRES ALPR OPERATORS TO PREVENT UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO ALPR DATA. woos eeceeteeessssseesessssessecsesssssesscseseessssssvassesracaeatsssesssacsese 1 A. SB 34’s Statutory Framework Confirmsthat It Does Not Contemplate Disclosure ofALPR Data to the Public............. 3 II. SB 34's LEGISLATIVE HISTORY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PLAIN MEANINGOFITS LANGUAGE...u.icccceecececesestssecesensees 7 CONCLUSION0ccceceeceescsesessesesessscsescscscscsssssvarsucsnsecacacacacaeasacacsacaeseeeees 11 CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT......ccccccccsccssssssesssecseacsestscsesessssesseeses 12 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CALIFORNIA CASES Adoption ofKelsey S. (1992) 1 Cal.4 816 viiccecccecssssscsecsssssssssssessssssscssssesssssesesesssssiesessesecess. 2 City ofHuntington Beach v. Board ofAdministration (1992) 4 Cab.4462 ooccccceccccccssscscsssesssssssesssssessssessessssessssesesssecesseeesee. 2 Coalition ofConcerned Communities, Inc. v. City ofLos Angeles (2004) 34 Cal.4" 733 oo.cceccsccssessessessssssssesssssssssssessecssessssisssseesessescesee. 2 Hampton v. County ofSan Diego (2015) 62 Cal.4340 oseccscssssscsssssuessssssseessssssssssssssnnesnsnanensansssssasssn 2 Los Angeles Unified SchoolDistrict v. Garcia (2013) 58 Cal.4175 voosecccsssssessesssssssssssssssssesssssssessssssetsessessesseeeesee. 2 Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. Superior Court (2014) 228 Cal.App.4222 oooceccccsscsssssessssssesssessessseesssessssesssseecesees 4 FEDERAL CASES Perdue v. Kenney A. ex rel. Winn (2010) 559 US. 542ieccccesessscecsssscsscssesscssecsrssesssecssstsessearssesesesees 7 CALIFORNIA STATUTES, COURT RULES AND LEGISLATIVE MATERIALS 2015 Cal. Legis. Serv. Ch. 532 (S.B. 34), October 6, 2015 ..ccccccccccscsesseseseces 6 Cal. Assem.Jour., July 13, 2015, Senate Bill No. 34 (2015-2016 Reg. Sess., NO. 107)... csessessssesssesesesssscessvsssestssssvseesersseesasacatssessssvesseseeseses 8 Cal. Bill Analysis, Assembly Committee, 2015-2016 Regular Session, S.B. 34 Assem., July 7, 2015 ...ccccccsscsssssscssssessessssessesesecesecececece. 6 ii Cal. Sen. Comm. On Transportation, Rep. on Bill No. 34 (2015- 2016 Reg. Sess.) April 2, 2015 oo. cccccccccsssssscscscssesseesesscescssestssevesesecenes 8 Cal. Sen. Jour., Bill No. 34 (2015-2016 Reg. Sess., No. 1) ...cccccsessssesseseese 7 Cal. Sen. Jour., Bill No. 34, May 5, 2015, Bill No. 34 (2015-2016 Reg. Sess., NO. 67)....eccsccssssssssessesescssssesscescsessessssssssacsaseecsessesteascatsesessueceess 8 Cal. Sen. Rules Com., Off. Of Sen. Floor Analysis, final reading analysis of Sen. Bill No. 34 (2015-2016 Reg. Sess.) September3, 2OLS ce eeeseesceeseesecessssessscsesssssseesssesessssesesssesessescsesescesesssssverseseesseeersnsesessecas 10 Civil Code §1798.90.5 oocceesecesssssssesssesssessessssecssssssescsersestenseseseeseses 3,5,7 Civil Code §1798.90.51 ou. escssessssssssssescsescsescssssscsescscsssvavevavecueesseaeacseaes 3,4 Civil Code §1798.90.52 oo. eccsesscsssssssssesescsescsesesessessescssssssasasececesesscatscacees 3,5 Civil Code §1798.90.53 wo. eeeececessessesesesesssessssssssessssesssssssssrsescasersncseseseses 3,5 Civil Code §1798.90.54 wo. ceeecsssesssesssessseseesssssssesssssssssscaravsessscsessestareeaeaes 3 Civil Code §1798.90.55 oo. cecssssesssesscseccsssesesescsssssssssssscscsesesecesucarstsucasssaecees 3 Govt. Code § 6257.5 oo. eeecesssessseseseccseecesssssssssssssssssssecsssssstecaratesessesaseseesees 4 Vehicle Code §2413 ooo. cesssessessesssecsssssscsessscssssssssscsevassvecsesssasssecesatseseceases 6 FEDERAL STATUTES, COURT RULES AND LEGISLATIVE MATERIALS 42 U.S.C. §1988 veccecsscsssssssssssssssssecsscasesessessesesesssssssssssssssssssseseessssssseseetesccssee 7 ili INTRODUCTION Senator Jerry Hill’s Amicus Brief contradicts the plain language and legislative history of Senate Bill 34 and doesnot support the argumentthat automatedlicense plate reader (“ALPR”) plate scans are public records underthe California Public Records Act (“CPRA”). If anything, the plain language andlegislative history of SB 34 confirm that California lawmakersare justly concerned aboutthe potential impact to private citizens if plate scans are disclosed to the public, while at the same time recognizing that private citizens should not be forced to choose between moreeffective, efficient law enforcement and their own privacyinterests. Far from assisting this Court’s disposition ofthis matter, Senator Hill’s Amicus Brief provides a personal, unsupported interpretation of a statute whoselegislative history and plain language speak for themselves. DISCUSSION I. THE PLAIN LANGUAGEOFSB 34 REQUIRES ALPR OPERATORS TO PREVENT UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO ALPR DATA A statute that imposescivil penalties for unauthorized disclosure of ALPRdata cannotlogically be interpreted to simultaneously require disclosure of that same data to anyone who makes a CPRA request. Not only wouldthis interpretation render SB 34’s civil penalty provision meaningless, it would potentially expose millions of California drivers to invasion ofprivacy by other private parties who could obtain their ALPR data without restriction. That cannot beand clearly is not the intention of the Legislature. This Court’s primary task in construinga statute is to determine legislative intent. (Hampton v. County ofSan Diego (2015) 62 Cal.4" 340, 349.) “Thestatutory language,of course,is the best indicatoroflegislative intent.” (AdoptionofKelsey S. (1992) 1 Cal.4™ 816, 826.) “We give the wordstheir usual and ordinary meaning, while construing them in light of the statute as a whole andthe statute’s purpose.” (Pinedav. Williams- SonomaStores, Inc. (2011) 51 Cal.4™ 524, 529-530.) “If there is no ambiguity in the language, we presumethe Legislature meant whatit said and the plain meaning ofthe statute governs.”(Id. at 530.) Reviewing courts have a duty to read the elements ofa statute together, harmonizing and giving effect to them all. (Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. Garcia (2013) 58 Cal.4" 175, 186; City ofHuntington Beach v. Board ofAdministration (1992) 4 Cal.4" 462, 468.) “Ifthe languageis clear, courts must generally follow its plain meaning unless a literal interpretation wouldresult in absurd consequencesthe Legislature did not intend.” (Coalition ofConcerned Communities, Inc. v. City ofLos Angeles (2004) 34 Cal.4™ 733, 737.) A. SB 34’s Statutory Framework Confirmsthat It Does Not Contemplate Disclosure ofALPR Datato the Public. SB 34 consists of six provisions: Civil Code Title §1798.90.5 Definitions §1798.90.51 | Automated license plate recognition end-user “ALPR” operator duties; maintenance ofreasonable security procedures; implementation ofusage andprivacy policy §1798.90.52 | Accessing or providing access to ALPR information by ALPRoperator; maintenance ofrecord of access; use of information for authorized purposes only §1798.90.53 | ALPR end-user duties; maintenance of reasonable security procedures andpractices; implementation of usage and privacy policy §1798.90.54 | Civil action for harm causedbyviolation oftitle; award §1798.90.55 Public meeting requirement;selling, sharing, or transfer of ALPRinformation by public agency prohibited SB 34 requires an ALPR operator to “[m]aintain reasonable security procedures and practices, including operational, administrative, technical, and physical safeguards, to protect ALPR information from unauthorized access, destruction, use, modification, or disclosure.” (Civ. Code, §1798.90.51(a).) However, under Senator Hill’s construction of SB 34, there can be no “unauthorized” access to ALPR data, because every memberofthe public would be entitled to request and obtain copies of ALPR data by submitting a CPRA request. Senator Hill nowhere addresses this fundamental inconsistency, which effectively renders SB 34’s data protection provisions meaningless. SB 34 requires ALPR operators to implementa “usage and privacy policy in order to ensurethat the collection, use, maintenance, sharing, and dissemination ofALPR information is consistent with respect for individuals’ privacy andcivil liberties.” (Civ. Code, §1798.90.51(b)(1).) The usage and privacy policy must be made publicly available and,ifthe ALPRoperator has a website, it must be posted “conspicuously onthe website.” (/d.) There is no need for a privacypolicy if any memberofthe public can obtain copies ofALPR data with a CRPA request, for any purpose whatsoever. (Govt. Code §6257.5; Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. Superior Court (2014) 228 Cal.App.4™ 222, 242 [identity and motives ofperson submitting CPRA requestis irrelevant].) Senator Hill’s proposedinterpretation renders these provisions meaningless. SB 34 also requires a “description ofthe job title or other designation of the employees and independent contractors who are authorized to use or access the ALPR system, or to collect ALPR information,” and a “description ofhow the ALPR system will be monitored to ensure the security of the information and compliance with applicable privacy laws.” (Civ. Code, §1798.90.51(b)(2)(B).) Ifan ALPR operator accesses or provides access to ALPR information, the ALPR operator must maintain recordsof that access, including the date and time 4 ofaccess,the license plate number used to query the system,the “username”ofthe person who accessedthe information, and the “purpose for accessing the information.” (Civ. Code, §1798.90.52(a).) These requirements are inconsistent with the requirements of the CPRA. Similar requirements apply to “ALPR end-users,” whoare defined as “a person that accesses or uses an ALPR system”. (Civ. Code, §1798.90.5(a).) They too must “[m]aintain reasonable security procedures and practices, including operational, administrative, technical and physical safeguards, to protect ALPR information from unauthorized access, destruction, use, modification, or disclosure.” (Civ. Code, §1798.90.53(a).) They also must “[i]mplementa usage and privacy policy in order to ensure that the access, use, sharing, and dissemination ofALPR informationis consistent with respect for individuals’ privacy and civil liberties,” which must be posted on their website. (Civ. Code, §1798.90.53(b)(1).) The usage andprivacy policy similarly must include a “description ofthe job title or other designation of the employees or independent contractors who are authorized to access and use ALPR information. Thepolicyshall identify the training requirements necessary for those authorized employees and independent contractors.” (Civ. Code, §1798.90.53(b)(2)(B).) These provisions confirm that SB 34 requires any person with access to ALPR data - even private individuals - to maintain ALPR data in a secure environment that prevents unauthorized access, use or disclosure, with full 5 disclosure to the public regarding their usage andprivacypolicies. SenatorHill offers no explanation how these requirements can be reconciled with his insistence that ALPR data constitutes a public record under the CPRA. That is because the Legislature never contemplated that ALPRdata would be freely provided to membersofthe public without regard to SB 34’s detailed schemeto restrict access to ALPR data. Instead, the Legislature referenced Vehicle Codesection 2413, governing ALPR use by the California HighwayPatrol, which prohibits “making the data available to an agency that is not a law enforcement agencyoran individual that is not a law enforcement officer.” (2015 Cal. Legis. Serv. Ch. 532 (S.B. 34), October 6, 2015.) The Legislature was plainly concerned that private citizens may be impactedbythe disclosure oflocation information, and addressed that concern byrestricting access to and disclosure of ALPR data. This is further corroborated by analysis performed by the Assembly Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection, which expressly found that SB 34 requires that “data collected throughthe use or operation of an ALPRsystem be treated as personal information for purposesofexisting data breach notification laws applying to agencies, persons, or businesses that conduct business in California and ownorlicense computerized data including personal information.” (California Bill Analysis, Assembly Committee, 2015-2016 Regular Session, S.B. 34 Assem., July 7, 2015.) 6 Civil Code section 1798.90.5 et seq. addresses the concerns presented by Petitioners without compromising the privacy concerns of private citizens. Rather than deem ALPR data “public records” and thus force the Legislature and citizenry to choose betweenprivacy concerns and moreeffective law enforcementofvehicle-related crimes, the Legislature has chosen to provide a private enforcement mechanism that will deter abuses ofALPR technology on a case-by-case basis. It is significant that the Legislature also has seen fit to provide the courts with the discretion to award reasonable attorney’s fees andlitigation costs, which removes concemsthat the new law will fail to deter abuses due to the costs of enforcement. (Cf. 42 U.S.C. §1988; Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn (2010) 559 U.S. 542, 550 [prevailing party attorney’s fee provision helps ensure thatcivil rights are adequately enforced].) Il. SB 34’s LEGISLATIVE HISTORY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PLAIN MEANINGOF ITS LANGUAGE SB 34, codified at Civil Code section 1798.90.5 et seq., was enacted to address privacy concernsarising from the collection of ALPRplate scans. This is confirmed by legislative history documenting its introduction by Senator Hill on December 1, 2014, where it was described as an act “relating to personal information.” (CA Sen. Jour., Bill No. 34 (2015-2016 Reg. Sess., No. 1) p. 17.) That description was maintained throughout the course ofits legislative history. (See, e.g., CA Assem. Jour., July 13, 2015, Senate Bill No. 34 (2015-2016 Reg. Sess., No. 107) p. 2351 [“...relating to personal information.”]; CA Sen. Jour., Bill No. 34, May 5, 2015, Bill No. 34 (2015-2016 Reg. Sess., No. 67) p. 898 [“...relating to personal information.”’].) The Committee Reports similarly reflect the overriding purpose of SB 34: “This bill establishes regulations on the privacy and usage of automatic license plate recognition (ALPR) data and expandsthe meaning of ‘personal information’to include information or data collected through the use or operation of an ALPR system.” (Sen. Comm. On Transportation, Rep. on Bill No. 34 (2015-2016 Reg. Sess.) April 2, 2015.) There is no mention of any intent to make ALPR data a public record. The final reading analysis of SB 34 details the legislative goals of SB 34 as follows: This bill: (2) Requires that data collected through the use or operation of an ALPR system be considered as personal information subject to existing law pertaining to agencies, persons, or businesses that conduct 8 business in California, and that ownor license computerized data including personal information. (4) Requires that ALPR operators ensurethat ALPRinformation is protected with reasonable operational, administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to ensureits confidentiality and integrity. (5) Requires that ALPR operators and end users implement and maintain reasonable security procedures andpractices in order to protect ALPR information from unauthorized access, destruction, use, modification, or disclosure. (6) Requires that ALPR operators and end users implement and maintain a usageand privacypolicy in order to ensure that the collection, access, and use of ALPRinformationis consistent with respect for individuals’ privacy andcivilliberties. (7) | Requires ALPR operators that access or provide access to ALPR information to maintain a record of that access. The record mustinclude the date and time of access, the license plate number which was queried, the person whoaccessesthe information, and the purpose of accessing the information. 9 (Sen. Rules Com., Off. Of Sen. Floor Analysis, final reading analysis of Sen. Bill No. 34 (2015-2016 Reg. Sess.) September 3, 2015, p. 4.) There is no mention of any intent to disclose ALPR data to members ofthe public as a means of monitoring ALPRuse. The final reading analysis also includes the following statement attributed to Senator Hill, the author: Purpose. The authorstates that this bill is necessary to institute reasonable usage and privacy standards for the operation ofALPR systems, which do notexist for the majority of local agencies that have approvedthe use ofALPR technology, according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Additionally,this bill requires an opportunity for public input on the usage and standards ofALPRtechnologies, something the author contends few local agencies allow. The author states that the main focusofthis bill is to put in place regulations for businesses and agencies which currently do not have any policies regarding the use of ALPRdata, unlike transportation agencies which are already regulated by existing law. (Id. at pp. 4-5.) Public disclosure ofALPR data is never mentioned. 10 CONCLUSION SB 34 addresses the concerns presented by Petitioners without compromising the privacy concernsofprivate citizens. Rather than deem ALPRdata “public records” and thus force the Legislature and citizenry to choose between privacy concerns and moreeffective law enforcement of vehicle-related crimes, the Legislature has chosento provide a private enforcement mechanism that will deter abuses ofALPR technology ona case-by-case basis. Thatis the correct result based on the languageofthe CPRA,the language of SB 34,andthe interests of private citizens in not having their location information disclosed to any memberofthe public whofills out and submits a CPRA request. Dated: August 10,2016 COLLINS COLLINS MUIR + STEWART LLP By: TomsA/Guterres, Esq. James. Jardin, Esq. iT, Attorneys for Real Party in Interest, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 11 CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(c)(1)) Thetext of this brief, excluding this Certificate, consists of 3,553 words as counted by the Microsoft Word version 2010 word-processing program used to generate thebrief. Dated: August 10, 2016 U/ James C{Jayéin 12 PROOF OF SERVICE (CCP §§ 1013(a) and 2015.5; FRCP 5) State of California, ) ) ss. County ofLos Angeles. _) I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 1100 El Centro Street, South Pasadena, California 91030. On this date, I served the foregoing document described as ANSWER TO AMICUS BRIEF OF SENATOR JERRY HILLontheinterested parties in this action by placing samein a sealed envelope, addressed as follows: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST X] (BY MAIL)- I caused such envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid to be placed in the United States mail in Orange, California to be served on the parties as indicated on the attached service list. I am “readily familiar” with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Underthat practice, it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereonfully prepaid at: South Pasadena, California in the ordinary course ofbusiness. I am aware that on motion ofthe party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one dayafter date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. L] (@®Y CERTIFIED MAIL) - I caused such envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid via Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested to be placed in the United States Mail in South Pasadena/Orange/Carlsbad, California. L] BY EXPRESS MAIL OR ANOTHERMETHOD OF DELIVERY PROVIDING FOROVERNIGHT DELIVERY [] (BY ELECTRONIC FILING AND/OR SERVICE) - I served a true copy, with all exhibits, electronically on designated recipients listed on the attached Service List: [-] FEDERAL EXPRESS- I causedthe envelope to be delivered to an authorized courier or driver authorized to receive documents with delivery fees provided for. LC] wy FACSIMILE)- I caused the above-described document(s) to be transmitted to the offices ofthe interested parties at the facsimile number(s) indicated on the attached Service List and the activity Treport(s) generated by facsimile number (626) 243-1111 (So. Pasadenaindicated all pages were transmitted. [] (BY PERSONAL SERVICE)- I caused such envelope(s) to be delivered by handto the office(s) ofthe addressee(s). Executed on August 10, 2016 at Orange, California. XX] (STATE)- I declare under penalty ofperjury underthe laws ofthe State ofCalifornia that the aboveis true and correct. [_] (FEDERAL) - I declare that I am employed in the office of a memberofthe bar of this court at whose direction the service was made. pace , PAARICE PORTER \_/ pporter@ccmslaw.com 13 SERVICE LIST ACLUv. Superior Court Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BS143004 2" Civ. Case No. B259392 Peter Bibring, Esq. I Copy ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 1313 W.Eighth Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 (213) 977-9500 - FAX: (213) 977-5299 pbibring@aclu-sc.org Attorneys for Petitioners, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA and ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION Jennifer Lynch, Esq. I Copy ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION 815 Eddy Street San Francisco, CA 94109 (415) 436-9333 - FAX: (415) 436-9993 jlynch@eff.or: Attorneys for Petitioners, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA and ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION Michael Feuer, City Attorney 1 Copy Carlos De La Guerra, Managing Assistant City Attorney Debra L. Gonzales, Supervising Assistant City Attorney Heather L. Aubry, Deputy City Attorney 200 North Main Street City Hall East, Room 800 Los Angeles, CA 90012 (213) 978-8393 - FAX: (213) 978-8787 Attorneys for Respondents, CITY OF LOS ANGELESand LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT Clerk of the Los Angeles County Superior 1 Copy Court 111 North Hill St. Los Angeles, CA 90012 Hon. James C. Chalfant I Copy Los Angeles County Superior Court 111 North Hill St., Dept. 85 Los Angeles, CA 90012 14 Clerk of the Court of Appeal 2°! Appellant District 300 South Spring Street Floor 2, North Tower Los Angeles, CA 90013-1213 Martin J. Mayer, Esq. Jones & Mayer 3777 N.Harbor Blvd. Fullerton, CA 92835 Attorneys for Amicus Curiae California State Sheriff’s Association,et al. James R. Wheaton Cherokee D.M. Melton FIRST AMENDMENT PROJECT 1736 Franklin St. 9" Floor Oakland, CA 94612 Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Northern California Chapter of Society of Professional Journalists Katielynn Boyd Townsend Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press 1156 15" Street NW,Suite 1250 Washington, DC 20005 Attorneys for Amici Curiae Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, et al. Michael G. Colantuono Michael R. Cobden Colantuono, Highsmight & Whatley, PC 420 Sierra College Drive, Suite 140 Grass Valley, CA 95945-5091 Attorneys for Amici Curiae League of California Cities et al. Alan Butler Electronic Privacy Information Center 1718 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20009 Attorneys for Amici Curiae Electronic Privacy Information Center 15 1 copy 1 Copy I Copy 1 Copy 1 copy 1 copy
