City petitioned for release of police body camera videos depicting incident in which police misconduct was alleged.
The Superior Court issued order placing restrictions on city council members’ use and discussion of the videos, and denied city’s subsequent motion to modify the restrictions. City appealed. the Court of Appeals affirmed. City’s petition for discretionary review was accepted.
The Supreme Court held that trial court abused its discretion by denying city’s motion without explanation.
By denying city’s motion to modify restrictions on city council’s use and discussion of police-worn body camera videos of incident involving alleged misconduct by the police without evidence in the record supporting finding restrictions were not a substantial impediment to city council members in discharging their duties, trial court abused its discretion, thus warranting remand for new hearing on the motion; even though nearly every party sought transparency through release of the videos, the trial court denied the city’s motion without providing any analysis, explanation, or conclusions of law.