In an email sent to “Media Partners” on Friday, February 13, 2026, SDPD Communications Manager Ashley Nicholes wrote that the Department “values the important role the media plays in transparency, accountability, and public trust,” but said SDPD is discontinuing the program “after reviewing our practices, applicable law, and the evolving media landscape.” The message encourages journalists to follow SDPD on X (Twitter) and use a hashtag for incident updates, a suggestion that underscores a growing institutional preference for one-way, department-controlled dissemination over independent, on-the-ground reporting.
The attached memorandum on City of San Diego letterhead, signed by SDPD Chief Scott Wahl, confirms the program’s termination and the immediate end of the associated placards. While SDPD says it will continue to “uphold the rights of all lawful news gatherers,” the memo also signals a shift away from any standardized credentialing framework and toward ad hoc verification. It indicates officers will receive training on media-related laws and that journalists are encouraged to carry a business ID or business card as proof of affiliation.
That sounds tidy on paper. On the street, it’s anything but.
For years, the SDPD-issued credential and placard functioned as a practical tool in fast-moving situations where seconds matter: fires, standoffs, major traffic collisions, disasters, and other scenes involving police or fire lines. Under SDPD’s own written procedure from 2019, the program existed precisely because the work requires proximity.
It defined the “Vehicle Identification Placard” as a blue placard issued to approved media representatives and freelancers, and it contemplated that credentialed members of the press “should be permitted to drive through police and/or fire lines (not into crime scenes)” so long as safety and investigations were not jeopardized, while the placard “permit[ted] parking in yellow zones, white zones, time zones, and parking meters while engaged in the course of their duties.” The application itself characterizes the pass as “a privilege granted by the Chief of Police to those who have a regular need to cross police and/or fire lines,” and it links eligibility and revocation to SDPD Procedure 1.31.
Now, SDPD is eliminating the entire system, at the same time San Diego is in the midst of heightened scrutiny over public-space access and rising costs of civic participation, including the increasingly contentious landscape of parking enforcement and fees around Balboa Park and other high-traffic civic zones. Removing the media placard does not merely force reporters to “figure it out.” It increases the likelihood of conflict at scenes, where parking is limited, enforcement is discretionary, and the act of documenting public activity is too often treated as inconvenience rather than a constitutional necessity.
This policy change also arrives against a backdrop of unanswered questions about what, exactly, prompted SDPD to first put the program “on hold” late last year. In December 2025, SDPD Public Information Officer Cesar Jimenez reportedly told media that “This program is on hold for now,” prompting a California Public Records Act request seeking the records behind the pause, any proposed revisions, and communications between SDPD leadership, the City Attorney’s Office, the Mayor’s Office, and outside stakeholders.
Now, SDPD is eliminating the entire system, at the same time San Diego is in the midst of heightened scrutiny over public-space access and rising costs of civic participation, including the increasingly contentious landscape of parking enforcement and fees around Balboa Park and other high-traffic civic zones. Removing the media placard does not merely force reporters to “figure it out.” It increases the likelihood of conflict at scenes, where parking is limited, enforcement is discretionary, and the act of documenting public activity is too often treated as inconvenience rather than a constitutional necessity.
This policy change also arrives against a backdrop of unanswered questions about what, exactly, prompted SDPD to first put the program “on hold” late last year. In December 2025, SDPD Public Information Officer Cesar Jimenez reportedly told media that “This program is on hold for now,” prompting a California Public Records Act request seeking the records behind the pause, any proposed revisions, and communications between SDPD leadership, the City Attorney’s Office, the Mayor’s Office, and outside stakeholders.
That request has been met with repeated notices that responsive records exist but are still being reviewed for exemptions, with the City reserving the right to withhold and/or redact material under claimed privileges. As of February 13, the City’s public records administration manager indicated an updated response timeline of February 17. The timing now matters more than ever, because the “hold” has quietly become a permanent cancellation.
Legally, SDPD is trying to thread a needle that departments across the country have been struggling with for years: how to interact with a fractured, modern media environment that includes freelancers, independent outlets, and digital publishers, without having to define who is a “real journalist.” A well-known media-law analysis from the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press described this national trend more than a decade ago - police agencies discontinuing press passes or rewriting standards amid an “onslaught of bloggers and freelancers,” while media lawyers warned that government-driven credentialing can become dangerous when it turns into a mechanism for deciding who gets access.
But San Diego’s approach is notable for what it discards without replacing: a transparent, written process that gave both media and officers a common reference point. When a department removes the objective framework and replaces it with “carry a business card,” it invites inconsistent treatment. It also risks chilling coverage, because journalists cannot do their jobs effectively if every scene becomes a negotiation and every negotiation becomes a potential escalation based on an individual officer’s mood, assumptions, or misunderstanding of press rights.
The Department’s memo gestures at California Penal Code protections for “lawful news gatherers,” but that promise will be tested in the field, not in email. California law has long recognized that the press has a role at emergencies and disasters, and courts have repeatedly warned against government systems that effectively create permission slips for journalism. The constitutional baseline is also clear: journalists generally have no greater right of access than the public, but the government cannot use credentialing systems, or their absence, to punish disfavored viewpoints or retaliate against critical coverage when it creates selective barriers.
This is where the City’s decision becomes more than “administrative.”
If SDPD’s true motivation is merely to avoid the thorny business of credentialing in 2026, then the City should be able to show its work: what “applicable law” compelled this, what operational problems drove it, what alternatives were considered, and why the answer was to remove a tool that, by SDPD’s own historical policy, helped balance public safety with lawful newsgathering.
Legally, SDPD is trying to thread a needle that departments across the country have been struggling with for years: how to interact with a fractured, modern media environment that includes freelancers, independent outlets, and digital publishers, without having to define who is a “real journalist.” A well-known media-law analysis from the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press described this national trend more than a decade ago - police agencies discontinuing press passes or rewriting standards amid an “onslaught of bloggers and freelancers,” while media lawyers warned that government-driven credentialing can become dangerous when it turns into a mechanism for deciding who gets access.
But San Diego’s approach is notable for what it discards without replacing: a transparent, written process that gave both media and officers a common reference point. When a department removes the objective framework and replaces it with “carry a business card,” it invites inconsistent treatment. It also risks chilling coverage, because journalists cannot do their jobs effectively if every scene becomes a negotiation and every negotiation becomes a potential escalation based on an individual officer’s mood, assumptions, or misunderstanding of press rights.
The Department’s memo gestures at California Penal Code protections for “lawful news gatherers,” but that promise will be tested in the field, not in email. California law has long recognized that the press has a role at emergencies and disasters, and courts have repeatedly warned against government systems that effectively create permission slips for journalism. The constitutional baseline is also clear: journalists generally have no greater right of access than the public, but the government cannot use credentialing systems, or their absence, to punish disfavored viewpoints or retaliate against critical coverage when it creates selective barriers.
This is where the City’s decision becomes more than “administrative.”
If SDPD’s true motivation is merely to avoid the thorny business of credentialing in 2026, then the City should be able to show its work: what “applicable law” compelled this, what operational problems drove it, what alternatives were considered, and why the answer was to remove a tool that, by SDPD’s own historical policy, helped balance public safety with lawful newsgathering.
If the City instead uses this policy shift to squeeze press access in practice, by increasing on-scene friction, enabling selective enforcement, or weaponizing parking and perimeter control against critical coverage, then the legal issues multiply quickly. Those issues range from First Amendment retaliation claims to due-process concerns when access is functionally denied without clear standards, to CPRA disputes if the City attempts to bury the rationale behind broad privilege claims.
It also raises a blunt question that San Diegans should not ignore: why, in an era of eroding trust in institutions, would SDPD choose a path that predictably reduces transparency, increases confrontation, and centralizes narrative control while simultaneously encouraging the public to rely on SDPD’s own social media feeds for “information about active incidents”? That is not a substitute for independent reporting. It’s a pitch for the public to consume policing through a department-managed filter.
The City can call it modernization. The people who cover the city, especially at its messiest, most consequential moments, will experience it as something else: a rollback of practical access, the removal of a longstanding tool that reduced conflict, and a policy choice that makes independent scrutiny harder when scrutiny is most needed.
Originally published on February 13, 2026.
It also raises a blunt question that San Diegans should not ignore: why, in an era of eroding trust in institutions, would SDPD choose a path that predictably reduces transparency, increases confrontation, and centralizes narrative control while simultaneously encouraging the public to rely on SDPD’s own social media feeds for “information about active incidents”? That is not a substitute for independent reporting. It’s a pitch for the public to consume policing through a department-managed filter.
The City can call it modernization. The people who cover the city, especially at its messiest, most consequential moments, will experience it as something else: a rollback of practical access, the removal of a longstanding tool that reduced conflict, and a policy choice that makes independent scrutiny harder when scrutiny is most needed.
Originally published on February 13, 2026.
