In what circumstances will a police officer be denied an administrative hearing because he cannot establish sufficient foundation to qualify evidence at bar?

Neither of these situations is analogous to the situation at bar. Here the officer could not establish the time in question, the method of retrieval of the photographs, or that any of the photographs or the videotape were a "`reasonable representation of that which it is alleged to portray ....'" People v. Gonzalez, supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 952.) A very analogous situation to the case

[186 Cal.App.4th Supp. 6]

at bar, however, is found in Ashford v. Culver City Unified Sch. Dist. (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 344, 349-350 [29 Cal.Rptr.3d 728], where the court held that the unauthenticated videotape allegedly showing employee's actions lacked sufficient foundation to be admitted at an administrative hearing. And in so holding, the court noted that without establishing such a foundation, the videotape was inadmissible.

In lieu of establishing the necessary foundation by direct testimony, the proponent of the evidence, respondent, argues that independent hearsay exceptions justify admission of the photographs under either the "official records exception" or the "business records exception" of the Evidence Code. (Evid. Code, 1280, 1271.) Neither of these sections supports respondent's contention. We recognize that the trial court is vested with "`wide discretion'" in determining whether sufficient foundation is laid to qualify evidence under these hearsay exceptions. (People v. Beeler (1995) 9 Cal.4th 953, 978 [39 Cal.Rptr.2d 607, 891 P.2d 153].) And "`[o]n appeal, exercise of that discretion can be overturned only upon a clear showing of abuse.'" (Id. at pp. 978-979.)