Congratulations to Mastagni Holstedt A.P.C. Partner, Kathleen N. Mastagni Storm, who was appointed as an Advisory Board Member for the Wildlife Technology Research and Development Review Advisory Board by California Assembly Member, Robert Rivas, who represents District 29.
Established in 2021 by California Senate Bill 109, the Office of Wildfire Technology Research and Development ("OWTRD") serves as the central organizing axis within the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection to study, test, and advise regarding procurement of emerging technologies and tools to more effectively prevent and suppress wildfires within the State.
The Advisory Board is tasked with reviewing the Office and serving OWTRD as an advisory entity. The Board is made up of nine members, including representatives from state agencies, the fire service, academia, and other stakeholders.
Following her appointment to the Board, Kathleen shares:
"For twenty years, I've fought to
protect and empower California firefighters and first responders who risk
everything to keep our communities safe. This role allows me to continue that
commitment by helping advance innovative technologies that will make their work
safer, more effective, and ultimately save more lives—it’s a privilege to give
back in this meaningful way."
At Mastagni Holstedt A.P.C., Ms. Mastagni Storm dedicates her practice to labor and employment law, with a focus on representing public safety professionals, including firefighters and first responders. As an attorney who has dedicated her career to representing first responders, she brings a uniquely informed legal and practical perspective to her appointment. Her firsthand experience advocating for emergency personnel has given her a deep understanding of the operational realities they face and the critical importance of effective equipment and resources. The Firm congratulates her on this well-deserved honor and looks forward to her continued contributions!
A recent decision from the California Supreme Court offers important guidance for public safety agencies and the officers they employ regarding obligations under the California Public Records Act (CPRA). In City of Gilroy v. Superior Court (2026) __ Cal.5th __, the Court addressed whether declaratory relief remains available after all nonexempt records have been produced and whether agencies must preserve records they have properly withheld as exempt while a request is pending.
The case arose from requests by a nonprofit legal services organization for Gilroy Police Department body-worn camera footage related to homeless encampment cleanups. The City withheld certain footage under the investigatory records exemption, produced other responsive nonexempt material, and ultimately followed its standard one-year retention policy for routine body-camera video. Some older footage had already been automatically deleted before the requests specifically identified body-camera video as the target.
The Supreme Court held that declaratory relief is available under the Public Records Act to address an agency’s past conduct in responding to a request, even when the matter would otherwise appear moot because all existing nonexempt records have been disclosed. Such relief serves the CPRA's purpose of clarifying rights and obligations and deterring future violations that could affect public access.
At the same time, the Court unanimously affirmed that the CPRA imposes no independent duty on agencies to preserve records they have claimed are exempt from disclosure. The Act is a disclosure statute, not a records-retention statute. Agencies remain free to follow applicable retention schedules established by statute or local policy, including the one-year retention period commonly applied to routine body-worn camera footage that is not evidentiary. The Court rejected arguments that a three-year preservation obligation should be read into the CPRA based on the general statute of limitations.
This ruling carries direct practical significance for public safety employees and the agencies that represent them. Body-worn camera footage, drone surveillance video, and other recordings frequently contain sensitive information about officers, tactics, or members of the public. When such material is properly withheld under an exemption, such as the investigatory exemption or Pitchess, the agency is not required to retain it indefinitely simply because a Public Records Act request has been received. Routine destruction in accordance with law does not, by itself, violate the Act.
The decision may also provide for declaratory relief to determined disputed interpretations of CPRA disclosures that affect employee organizations or their members, such as disputes over the scope and interpretation of disputed disclosures under Senate Bill 1421 and related statutes governing peace officer records. Under this decision, disputes over past disclosed can potentially be adjudicated to obtain prospective determinations affecting future requests. Agencies may continue to apply deletion policies with confidence that compliance with statutory retention periods will not expose them to liability under the Public Records Act for records properly claimed as exempt.
As always, each Public Records Act request and retention decision must be evaluated on its specific facts. Officers or agencies facing novel or aggressive requests for personnel-related materials, body-camera footage, or drone surveillance video are encouraged to consult experienced counsel promptly to ensure both compliance with disclosure obligations and protection of legitimate privacy interests.
On January 13, 2026, David E. Mastagni appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee to deliver testimony on behalf of the Peace Officers Research Association of California in opposition to Senate Bill 747, referred to as the No Kings Act by its proponents. This legislation, authored by Senator Scott Wiener, aims to establish a new state cause of action for individuals deprived of their constitutional rights under color of any law, mirroring the framework of federal Section 1983 claims but extending potential liability to a broader range of actors, including federal officers. Proponents argue that the bill addresses accountability gaps in cases where federal remedies, such as those under Bivens actions, prove inadequate, particularly in areas like immigration enforcement and election interference. However, as Mr. Mastagni emphasized in his testimony, the measure in its current form introduces unnecessary duplication and risks undermining established legal balances without meaningfully enhancing protections.
Building upon our prior post examining SB 747 and its potential implications for public safety personnel, Mr. Mastagni's testimony highlighted PORAC's core concerns with the bill's redundancy and its unintended consequences for California public employees. He explained that the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act already provides a robust mechanism for addressing constitutional violations, offering broader coverage than Section 1983 by encompassing interference through threat, intimidation, or coercion, even outside the color of law. This existing statute renders SB 747 superfluous, as it effectively allows suits against federal officers in their individual capacities where appropriate. Mr. Mastagni stressed that Supremacy Clause immunity would likely continue to protect federal actors operating within their authority, leaving the bill's practical impact confined largely to state and local employees who are already accountable under multiple frameworks.
A central theme of the testimony focused on the dangers of duplicative liability for California public servants. Mr. Mastagni articulated that by codifying a new cause of action akin to Section 1983 without adequate safeguards, SB 747 would layer additional exposure onto peace officers, teachers, social workers, and other state workers who currently face accountability through Section 1983 and the Bane Act. Such overlap not only invites increased litigation and potential inconsistencies in legal standards but also threatens to chill the essential duties of these professionals, deterring them from performing their roles effectively amid heightened fears of personal financial ruin. He underscored that this expansion fails to advance genuine accountability, as federal sovereign immunity doctrines, as affirmed in cases like Cheng v. Speier, 609 F. Supp. 3d 1046 (N.D. Cal. 2022) would often preempt claims against federal officers even if brough in their individual capacities because courts look to the "real party in interest." Where the suit challened the performance of official duties, the United States would liekly be deemed the real party in interest.
To address these issues while maintaing the bill's intent to close legitimate gaps in constitutional remedies, PORAC's proposed amendments to the bill. These amendments would exempt any public employee (whether federal, state or local) already subject to liability under Section 1983 or Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, thereby preventing redundant lawsuits and ensuring uniform treatment across federal, state, and local actors. Additionally, the amendments would reverse the bill's savings clause, rendering the entire measure inoperative if a court determines that sovereign immunity bars its application to federal officers.
State and local public employees were sept into this bill due to the author's cocerns that including onyl federal employees would discriminate against federal employees. However, these amendment comport with the principles of intergovernmental immunity, as articulated in United States v. Washington, by promoting equity though application of evenhanded standards without discriminating based on governmental status. In fact, these modifications would transform the bill into a bona fide mechanism for filling accountability gaps and ensuring all public employee are subject to identical accountablity for Consittutional violations.
PORAC recognizes the importance of ensuring accountability for constitutional violations where federal remedies fall short, but insists that any reform must treat all public employees fairly and avoid burdensome redundancies. “PORAC supports closing genuine gaps in constitutional accountability,” said Brian R. Marvel, PORAC President. “But we must do so in a way that treats all public employees fairly, avoids redundant and burdensome litigation, and fully complies with federal law. The proposed amendments achieve that balance.”
The testimony, which can be viewed in the embedded video below, reflects PORAC's commitment to advocating for reasoned legislation that protects both civil rights and the professionals entrusted with public safety.
Senate Bill 747 advanced through additional Senate proceedings despite California law enforcement opposition and on January 27, 2026, the California State Senate passed the bill on a 30-10 party-line vote, sending it to the Assembly for consideration. T
.jpg)