The Santa Ana Police Department can use a surveillance video in an internal affairs investigation over officers’ actions in a high profile pot shop raid, a judge has decided.

Santa Ana police made national headlines in June when a video recorded from a hidden camera showed officers making derogatory remarks about a disabled woman and purportedly eating pot edibles during a raid at Sky High Collective.

Arguing that the officers’ privacy rights were violated, the Santa Ana Police Officers Association and three unidentified officers filed a temporary restraining order against the city and police department to prevent internal affairs investigators from using the video to determine if department polices were violated.

When officers raided the store, they disabled all the surveillance cameras and moved the customers outside, but they missed a hidden camera on a shelf. The police union said officers had a reasonable expectation of privacy since they didn’t know they were being recorded.

But in a three-page ruling released Wednesday, Orange County Superior Court Judge Ronald L. Bauer rejected the restraining order, stating that officers did not have a reasonable privacy expectation since they were on-duty at the time.

“While the officers have declared that they expected privacy, the court has concluded that they had no objectively reasonable expectation that their words and actions would not be observed,” Bauer wrote.

“They should not expect privacy in their on-duty performance of an official function at a marijuana dispensary. They have made no claim that their work required secrecy or that it would be impeded by public review.”

While the judge has quashed the temporary restraining order, the Santa Ana Police Union has the option to continue to fight the case. Attorney Corey Glave, who represents the union and the three officers, could not be reached for comment Wednesday.

Santa Ana Police Union President John Franks declined comment.

Attorney Matthew Pappas, who is representing Sky High in a federal lawsuit against the police department, said the ruling sends a message that public officials can be held accountable for their actions.

“They can’t hide behind these types of laws to prevent themselves from being held accountable for their behavior,” Pappas said.

Pappas distributed clips and unedited versions of the May 26 raid to several television stations and online news organizations, including the Register in June.

In one of the video clips, Santa Ana police officers brandishing firearms, and some wearing masks, are seen breaking through the front door of the 17th Street medical marijuana dispensary and ordering at least a half-dozen customers to the floor.

After most of the cameras are taken down, a camera they apparently didn’t notice shows some of the officers making derogatory remarks about woman with an amputated left leg who at the time of the raid was in her wheelchair inside the dispensary.

In another clip – which Pappas has titled “Officers eating edibles and playing darts” – a voice can be heard asking, “What flavor?” before an officer is seen unwrapping a small package and putting something in his mouth.

Glave, the attorney representing the police union, argued that the surveillance video was illegally recorded in violation of officers’ privacy rights. He said officers will suffer “irreparable harm,” including discipline and termination, if the video is used in the ongoing investigation.

“Without the illegal recordings, there would have been no internal investigation of any officer,” Glave said, in the lawsuit.

The California Invasion of Privacy Act makes it illegal for any person without the consent of another party to record confidential audio or video communications.

However, attorney Anthony Snodgrass, representing the city, argued that officers in this case did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy since they were conducting police work inside a business. It would be different, for example, if officers were chatting in their locker room, he said.

The judge agreed. Bauer in his ruling said there was no contention that any material in the investigation was “unlawfully obtained.”

Contact the writer: kpuente@ocregister.com, 714-834-3773