Settlement as to "California Law Prohibiting Anyone From Sharing Lawfully Obtained Information About Sealed Arrest Records"

Key Takeaways

• Settlement stops civil penalties for journalists reporting sealed arrest records
• California Penal Code §851.92(c) still on books despite non-enforcement
• FIRE and First Amendment Coalition secured preliminary injunction protecting First Amendment rights
• Law could be weaponized against public unless legislature rescinds it

Pulse Analysis

California’s attempt to criminalize the sharing of sealed arrest records has long hovered over the state’s press landscape. Enacted under Penal Code §851.92(c), the law imposes a $1,500 civil penalty on anyone who publishes or even discusses information from a sealed report, regardless of how the data was obtained. Critics argue that the statute overreaches constitutional boundaries, effectively silencing journalists and public watchdogs on matters of significant public interest. The law’s broad language has drawn scrutiny from First Amendment scholars, who point to Supreme Court rulings that protect the dissemination of lawfully obtained information.

The recent settlement, driven by FIRE and the First Amendment Coalition, marks a practical victory for press freedom. By securing a preliminary injunction, the plaintiffs ensured that the city of San Francisco and the state of California will not enforce the $1,500 penalty against journalists like Jack Poulson, who reported on a sealed arrest involving tech CEO Maury Blackman. The agreement does not repeal the statute, but it halts its enforcement while the litigation proceeds, offering immediate relief to media outlets and reinforcing the legal precedent that the First Amendment shields the publication of lawfully obtained facts. This outcome also underscores the strategic value of strategic litigation in challenging statutes that threaten open discourse.

Looking ahead, the settlement puts pressure on California lawmakers to revisit the contentious provision. If left unrepealed, the law could be weaponized against activists, attorneys, or any individual possessing sealed information, creating a chilling effect across the state’s robust tech and media sectors. Repealing the statute would align California’s legal framework with established First Amendment jurisprudence and restore confidence among journalists covering government transparency. For the broader industry, the case serves as a reminder that legal safeguards for information sharing remain essential to an informed public and a vibrant democratic marketplace.