CHULA VISTA, Calif. — The City of Chula Vista released the following updated statement regarding the ongoing legal matter of Arturo Castañares v. the City of Chula Vista:

After careful consideration, on July 28, 2025, the Chula Vista City Council voted to seek additional review from the Supreme Court of California of the San Diego Superior Court’s May 2025 ruling. The City believes at least a portion of the recent ruling was in error and that further legal review is needed to clarify language in the Castañares matter that creates tension with existing law governing disclosure of private information maintained by law enforcement agencies. This conflict, if left unaddressed, may lead to confusion in appropriately responding to future California Public Records Act requests. 

The Chula Vista Police Department’s Drone Program provides crucial support to officers on the ground, in order to make better informed decisions to advance both public and officer safety. Chula Vista’s drones are flown only in response to calls for police services; the drones do not patrol the skies. The City of Chula Vista has long recognized that drones have the potential to capture video that is of a sensitive or private nature, and we have always considered the privacy rights of our community to be of paramount concern. Based on community feedback and California laws that protect privacy rights, the City incorporated privacy controls limiting access to drone video footage. Chula Vista remains committed to protecting the public and maintaining trust in the Drone Program by ensuring that video captured is kept secure and confidential unless otherwise required by law. 

It is with this commitment in mind that Chula Vista has vigorously defended against a lawsuit seeking to have Chula Vista disclose one month of drone footage sought pursuant to the California Public Records Act. 

On April 5, 2021, the Chula Vista Police Department received a request pursuant to the California Public Records Act, seeking copies of all drone video recordings from the month of March 2021. The City of Chula Vista declined to provide the copies pursuant to certain statutory provisions that limit or preclude disclosure of information from criminal investigations and because doing so might have violated individual privacy rights. The City would have had to manually review and redact every video recording to protect information considered personal, such as images of faces, license plates, backyards, and more. According to estimates, this review and redaction work for just this one Public Records Act request would have required the City to dedicate the time of one full-time employee for approximately 229 full workdays, which equates to almost a full year. This process would be time-consuming and costly, and yet still may not adequately protect privacy, and could compromise some Police Department operations. On the other hand, not reviewing and redacting the video recordings before release would risk invading the privacy of and exposing the public to potential misuse of sensitive images and data. The Public Records Act specifies that, if a record is released to anyone, the same records must be provided to anyone who asks for them. The City’s hesitation to release recordings is not due to any desire for secrecy or to evade accountability, but to prevent losing a vital program due to risks to the public’s privacy and excessive costs and resources needed to review and redact footage prior to disclosing drone recordings. 

The City achieves accountability by providing a substantial amount of data on the Drone as First Responder program online (including providing every flight path), providing public tours of the program, maintaining well-developed policies to govern the use of drones, and disclosing information required under the Public Records Act relating to responses to calls for service. The Court of Appeal acknowledged that the Chula Vista Police Department provided a wealth of information to the requester in this case. (See Court of Appeal for the State of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division One Case No. D082048.) 

On December 27, 2023, the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District issued a ruling relating to the request for one month of drone footage. The ruling is thoughtful and complimentary of Chula Vista’s Drone Program overall but finds that at least a portion of the videos might be subject to disclosure and directed the case to be sent back to the Superior Court of San Diego “to conduct further proceedings.” The Court of Appeal did not rule that the City must disclose any videos at the time, nor did it grant any relief to the individual who requested the videos. 

The City appreciated the Court of Appeal’s consideration of the case, which involves a new use of technology not yet considered by any other appellate court in California. While the City takes very seriously its obligation to provide public access to public records, the City remained concerned that the Court of Appeal’s opinion could compromise significant privacy concerns of members of the public in this case, or in future public records requests. For that reason, in January 2024, the Chula Vista City Council (for the first time) sought review of the matter by the Supreme Court of the State of California. The request for review was not taken up at that time, and case proceeded back to the San Diego Superior Court according to the Court of Appeal opinion. 

Subsequently, on May 21, 2025, the Superior Court issued a new ruling in the case, in response to the December 2023 opinion from the Court of Appeal. The Superior Court determined the City should disclose approximately 24 videos to the requestor, subject to blurring of faces and streets where the Court deemed it necessary to do so to protect the privacy of the involved individuals. 

The City is now seeking review of the May 2025 ruling from the Supreme Court of California to clarify language in the Castañares matter that may lead to confusion in appropriately responding to future California Public Records Act requests. The City may, from time to time, release drone footage of incidents to illustrate the efficacy of the program to the community, however, the City’s overarching goal is to preserve the privacy of its residents where appropriate and obtain clear guidance regarding when disclosure of drone footage is warranted under California law.