After the victory of the 9th circuit, the County of San Diego seeks to remember more sheriff files – San Diego Union -Tribune

Almost as soon as a Federal Court of Appeal canceled the decision of a lower court that certain internal sheriff files must be made available to the public, lawyers of the County of San Diego began to capitalize on the decision.

The County Board of Councils, which defends Sheriff Kelly Martinez and other civil servants and agencies in civil dispute, largely interpreting the recent decision 2-1 of the 9th Circuit Court of American Appeals and asked the judges of other prosecution to retain similar files – or to cancel previous decisions to submit the files.

In at least four unrelated cases, the county attempts to prevent applicants from accessing the conclusions by the Critical Incident Review Board, or CIRB, an internal panel of sheriff managers who consider potential changes of policy after someone dies or is seriously injured during his sheriff’s custody.

The county prevailed in his efforts to maintain private files in one case. Trigger In the other three cases, are pending.

The files in question are particularly relevant to the county of San Diego, which had long maintained one of the deadliest prison systems in the state and has paid tens of millions of dollars to families of people who died in detention.

In June 2023, the judge of the American district court, JinSook Ohta, ruled in a trial brought by the San Diego Union-Tribune and other media organizations that the CIRB reports to 12 deaths in detention should be sealed.

The documents were originally requested by the lawyers of Frankie Greer, who accepted a regulation of 7.75 million dollars of the county after having a crisis and fell from the upper area of ​​his three -bed prison cell and underwent a traumatic brain lesion.

“There are valid and imperative reasons for the public to be informed of the conditions within the county prisons,” said the judge. “The public is interested in these documents.”

The County of San Diego called Ohta’s order hours before the documents were to be published,, Distant that the files were privileged because a sheriff’s lawyer participates in the meetings of the examination committee.

In February, a majority of the appeal committee judged that the County of San Diego could retain CIRB reports under the lawyer-client privilege for this reason.

The dissident judge did not agree, claiming that the county had not established that the main objective of the CIRB was to consider potential legal responsibility and to conclude that at least some of the documents related to his exams could be submitted.

In the weeks following this decision, the lawyers of the County of San Diego have repeatedly sought to keep other CIRB documents – not only the 12 linked to the GREER case – Bounded even lawyers who had previously been able to obtain the documents as long as they were not shared with the public.

“Based on the new decision by Greer Ninth Circuit, (the) County asks the court to reconsider and reverse the clearly erroneous decisions and contrary to law decisions in the order forcing the production of CIRB documents,” said the lawyer in a case of prison death.

“The request for privilege and the documents addressed in Greer are materially identical to those in this case, and a rapid review here,” they wrote.

It is not yet clear if the legal strategy of the County of San Diego will succeed.

Before the decision of the 9th circuit, several judges had judged that CIRB reports were not protected by the lawyer-client privilege and should therefore be provided to the lawyers’ lawyers, although under Seal. Even the decision that the county has won was registered without prejudice, which means that it could be re -examined if the decision of the 9th circuit is not confirmed.

Last month, the Union-Tribune and other press organizations asked for what is called a bench audience, or an examination of the case by all the judges of the 9th circuit. We do not know when – or if – the petition will be granted.

But if GREER’s decision is not clarified, even more government agencies are likely to extend the definition of the avocado-client privilege to poorly retain internal documents, according to the petition filed by Blood Hurst & O’Reardon, the law firm representing the Union-Distribune, the prison news and the voice of San Diego.

“The sudden enlargement of the Panel of the Privilege Avocate-Client, in conflict with case law, will have profound implications which go far beyond the sealing of the documents linked to the deaths of prison,” said the petition.

“The majority analysis allows organizations to protect the factual information from disclosure by placing a lawyer in the room,” he adds.

Applicant lawyers say that the divided decision of the 9th circuit is limited to the CIRB reports in question in the GREER dispute – not in other files of the examination committee. They also emphasize that the GREER case is not yet binding because the decision remains the subject of a rehearsal request.

Greer’s opinion also seems to be conflict with new state legislation, which calls for public liberation internal conclusions in prison-day surveys, regardless of the lawyer-client privilege.

Under Bill 519 of the Senate, which was promulgated in 2023 and entered into force on July 1, California’s sheriffs must publish “documents stating the conclusions or recommended conclusions” of internal examinations of deaths in prison.

The former senator of the Toni Atkins state, the author of the law, said that she intended to apply the legislation to apply to the CIRB reports.

But the sheriff’s office has published files related to three deaths – including photographs and homicide reports – on its website, but it has not published something that reflects “conclusions or recommended conclusions”.

When asked why these files were not included in disclosure, a sheriff spokesperson said that the ministry “had published all the documents and relevant documents in accordance with this law”.

A lawyer who represents the families of several people who died in the custody of the sheriff does not agree.

“The Sheriff Department continues to deny and fight the clear intention of the legislature,” said Julia Yoo.

“Given the history of the public spending department to hide its problems instead of solving them, the supervisor council must ensure that it is in accordance with the law,” she said.

Yoo was also one of the four lawyers who filed a thesis with the 9th short circuit in support of the review in the bench of Opinion Greer 2-1.

Historically, county supervisors have generally hesitated to try to exercise more control over the elected sheriff of the county beyond the approval of the annual budget of its office – even if the legal costs of civil proceedings move away from the money from the general fund.

At the end of last year, however, the supervisor Monica Montgomery Steppe presented a plan aimed at extending the authority of the Citizens’ Law Enforcement Review Board, the volunteer supervisory committee responsible for monitoring the sheriff and the probation service.

The suggested changes, which include the addition of medical staff and entrepreneurs to the competence of the supervisory committee, are being assessed and should return to the board of directors later this year.

The Sheriff’s Office has also refused to publish CIRB reports when they are the subject of California Public Records Act requests, citing the lawyer-client privilege.

David Loy, Legal Director of the First Amendment Coalition, a non -profit organization engaged in the open government, said that the County of San Diego should not retain the reports of the CIRB sought under the State Open Records.

“If you or I make a request for public files (ACT), I do not think that Greer can replace (Senate bill) 519,” said Loy. “As a general question, the public always has an imperious interest for as much transparency as possible about the death of people in prison.”

Originally published: April 6, 2025 at 5:00 a.m.