Loading…
Recordings from the Sheriff's courthouse video monitoring systems are in the Sheriff's custody and are not an official record of proceedings; no public disclosure is made except by order of a Supervising Judge responsible for the courthouse, in consultation with the courtroom judge, on a noticed motion served on the known litigants and counsel (and, in criminal matters, the District Attorney and the Offices of the Public Defender and Alternate Public Defender) that describes the video as narrowly as possible and the reasons for disclosure. Supersedes 2023-GEN-006-00.
California > Second Appellate District > Los Angeles County > Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles
2025-GEN-005-00 FILED Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles JANUARY 2, 2025 David W. Slayton, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court By: R. Mina, Deputy SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES COURT SECURITY VIDEOS GENERAL ORDER (SUPERSEDING 2023-GEN-006-00) The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department’s office within each courthouse is responsible for the safety and security of all persons entering the courthouse. This responsibility requires the Sheriff’s Department to respond to all incidents involving safety and security until rendered safe. As noted in the LASC Court Security Plan and the Sheriff’s Law Enforcement Security Plan (page 11 and page 22, respectively), prepared pursuant to Government Code section 69921, subdivision (c), “[t]o assist the Sheriff, video monitoring systems have been placed in courthouse public hallways, waiting areas, and some courtrooms, as well as, lockups and the clerk’s office to assist in the security of courthouses.” Audio is not captured except when an emergency button is engaged with regard to a specific activity. Not all video is recorded, and when recorded, is retained for only a limited period of time. The recordings are not an official record of court proceedings and may not be used as such. (Gov. Code, § 69957.) Public disclosure of such recordings presents a security risk, as they may inappropriately disclose significant aspects of the Sheriff’s security plan. The video monitoring systems are under the control of the Sheriff, and any recordings from such systems are in the Sheriff's custody. No public disclosure of any recordings shall be made except by order of a Supervising Judge with responsibility for managing the courthouse in which the recording was made in consultation with the involved courtroom judge, if any, after consideration of a noticed motion, with proof of service upon known litigants involved in the recorded proceedings, and their counsel, and, with regard to criminal matters, also upon the Los Angeles County District Attorney and the Offices of the Public Defender, and Alternate Public Defender. Any such motion must describe as narrowly as possible, the time, date, and location of the video sought, the specific reasons disclosure is warranted, why there are no other alternatives, proposals for minimizing the potential impact on competing interests, including maintaining the Court’s security, litigants’ rights to a fair trial, protection of minor victims and witnesses, privacy interests of jurors, protection of witnesses from embarrassment or intimidation, protection of attorney-client privilege, national security, and the maintenance of courtroom dignity and decorum. (NBC Subsidiary v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1222, n. 46.) Upon receiving any subpoena or request for access to such recordings, the Sheriff or Clerk of the Court shall provide the requestor with a copy of this Order and notify the appropriate Supervising Judge of the request and the delivery of a copy of this Order. Unless further directed by the Court, no further action or court appearance by the Sheriff or Clerk of the Court is necessary. This General Order does not apply to internal requests from the Executive Officer/Clerk of Court related to court administrative matters. Internal court access to such recordings shall be governed by written court policy. Effective immediately, this General Order will remain in effect until otherwise ordered by the Presiding Judge. GOOD CAUSE APPEARING THEREFOR, IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: January 2, 2025 ____________________________________ SERGIO C. TAPIA II Presiding Judge GENERAL ORDER – COURT SECURITY VIDEOS
2025-GEN-005-00 FILED Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles JANUARY 2, 2025 David W. Slayton, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court By: R. Mina, Deputy SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES COURT SECURITY VIDEOS GENERAL ORDER (SUPERSEDING 2023-GEN-006-00) The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department’s office within each courthouse is responsible for the saf
Reviewer note: Composed 2026-09-29 (California T3 Los Angeles build 2026-09-29) from BenchPath custody ca/t3/ca-los-angeles/general-orders/LIBSVCExecutiveSupport-368-2025-GEN-005-00_CourtSecurityVideos_010225.pdf (405597 bytes, sha256 331014f9bbaffd82a66d0da8890a7f09e05cba837ebebebe70a85fa873481de9; 2 pages) with the shared verbatim composer (v2 reflow), reading the glyphs drawn on the page: page numbers, pleading line numbers, the order number and running footer titles removed as chrome; the two-column pleading caption set left cell, then right cell (the “)” column and the box's rule left out); lines reflowed into the order's paragraphs; proof 1 (whitespace-only), proof 2 (same character multiset as the text layer minus chrome) and proof 3 (same characters as the glyphs drawn on the page) all pass.
9 verbatim requirements from 4th Circuit Administrative Order 1997-10.
6 verbatim requirements from 4th Circuit Administrative Order 1997-13.