Are Protective Orders in California Criminal Cases Becoming Too Broad?

By Michael Phillips – CABayNews

California law allows prosecutors to request protective orders in criminal cases when disclosure of discovery materials could endanger victims or witnesses. But recent data and testimony suggest the tool may be expanding beyond those limits, raising questions about transparency, due process, and statewide consistency.

Under Penal Code §1054.7, restrictions on discovery require a showing of good cause and must be narrowly tailored. However, interviews with attorneys in multiple counties, along with recent Judicial Council reports, indicate that “blanket” protective orders — covering routine police reports, dispatch logs, and ordinary body-worn camera footage — are becoming more common.

Resource Pressures Driving Expansion

The San Francisco Public Defender’s Office reported in 2022 that redacting body-worn camera footage can take 2–4 hours per hour of video, leading to significant backlogs. Some prosecutors say protective orders help them release evidence faster by avoiding extensive redaction.

A Los Angeles deputy district attorney acknowledged the trend at a 2023 county meeting:

“Redaction delays are a workload problem. Protective orders are sometimes the only way to move cases forward on schedule.”

Public defenders, many handling caseloads exceeding national standards, also frequently stipulate to such orders. The Los Angeles County 2024–25 budget reports felony caseloads exceeding 400–600 per attorney in several units.

Impact on Defendants

Critics argue the practice can limit defendants’ ability to participate in their own cases, particularly when orders prevent them from:

• keeping copies of discovery
• sharing materials with experts or investigators
• reviewing video evidence outside counsel’s presence

The American Bar Association and California Public Defenders Association have both raised concerns about blanket restrictions that limit access rights more broadly than intended by statute.

Legal Standards and Oversight

California appellate courts have warned against broad or prewritten protective orders. In People v. Superior Court (Johnson) (2017), the Court of Appeal emphasized that protective orders must be supported by specific, individualized good-cause findings.

The Judicial Council’s 2022–23 delay report similarly advised courts to avoid “system-driven restrictions” that impede defendant access.

Policy Questions Moving Forward

As counties manage increasing digital-evidence workloads, the Legislature and Judicial Council may face pressure to:

• clarify limits on protective orders
• increase funding for redaction
• create statewide reporting on their use
• ensure courts make individualized good-cause findings

For now, counties vary widely in practice, and the balance between protecting victims and preserving transparency continues to evolve.

---

Support Independent Journalism

California Bay News is part of the Bay News Media Network — a growing group of independent, reader-supported newsrooms covering government accountability, courts, public safety, and institutional failures across the country.

Support independent journalism that isn’t funded by political parties, corporations, or government agencies
Submit tips or documents securely — if you see something wrong, we want to know

Independent reporting only works when readers stay engaged. Your attention, tips, and support help keep these stories alive.