CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
...Privileges
......Official Information; Info Held by Govt
.........Police Personnel & Complaint Records
............Limitations
 27 Cards On This Topic:
  • Limitations on disclosure of officer personnel records and complaints.
  • Peace or custodial personnel records and complaints may be used only in applicable court proceeding.
  • DA must follow the Pitchess procedures to determine whether Os' files contain exculpatory info.; prosecution fulfills its Brady duty if it informs D that SFPD told it that the records might contain such info.
  • As Os' names not rendered confidential by statutory exemptions in CPRA, Os' assoc. cannot get a blanket injunction preventing disclosure of officer names ••every time•• one is involved in a shooting.
  • Derivative info, found by independent investigation after Pitchess disclosure in earlier case, not subject to protective order when 2d D files own Pitchess motion and gets name of complainant to which info pertains.
  • Trial court may permit D to file Pitchess declaration under seal if court determines such a filing necessary; declaration filed under seal must be redacted before being served on city atty.
  • D made no showing that he was entitled to additional information from O’s personnel file per Pitchess motion at penalty phase.
  • Press and public do not have the right to personnel/other records of peace officers administratively appealing disciplinary matters-right of access under CPRA not absolute.
  • Remand required where trial court's redactions of independent report following officer-involved shooting included things unrelated to Os' personnel files, and materials not privileged under the Public Records Act.
  • Trial ct. properly denied D's Pitchess request where sealed declaration of counsel, made on information and belief, lacked an adequate foundation to establish the unavailability of the witnesses.
  • In disclosing peace officers' photos, although they are not protected as personnel records, trial ct. must require measures to ensure the disclosure does not create a threat to Os' safety and security.
  • Custodians of records at Pitchess in camera hearing must be sworn for the records they produce and their statements to be considered "evidence" on appeal; failure to administer oath mandates conditional reversal.
  • In light of the low threshold for obtaining in camera review of materials in former probation O's (V's) personnel file, trial court erred in denying D's motion; conditional reversal for in camera review required.
  • Denial of Pitchess motion proper where D denied he made threats heard by Os on Vs' phone but did not deny the call and failed to present "an alternate version of the facts" as to reason for it.
  • Trial ct. to review O's personnel file for complaints and related material alleging that on or before Pet.'s trial ended, O failed to report payments/incentives to informants; Pet. failed to prove necessity of Pitchess review.
  • Where D's undisputed extrajudicial statements are reasonably consistent with O's description of crime, discovery of any complaint of O's prior fabrication is foreclosed: D impliedly agreed O was truthful in his crime report.
  • Motion for additional info based on new facts flowed from original Pitchess motion, but was more than a mere continuation of original; 2d disclosure should be subject to safeguards of properly noticed motion.
  • Conditional reversal required for new Pitchess hearing following proper procedures.
  • Berkeley must comply with PC 832.7 and not disclose peace officer personnel records except per contingencies there specified, and must cease permitting public to access PRC investigations, reports, hearings, and findings.
  • Nonpublic records of Commission on Judicial Performance are not subject to a Pitchess motion.
  • PC 1054.9 authorizes pre-habeas corpus motion for discovery of peace officer personnel records per Pitchess and EC 1043; if no motion made at trial, records must be material to habeas claims and claims must be cognizable on habeas.
  • Pitchess hearing req'd where records custodian doesn't produce entire personnel file for review; s/he must establish on record what documents were included in personnel file and explain his or her decision to withhold docs.
  • Allegations by D which merely contradicts statements of civilian witnesses are not sufficient to establish good cause for discovery of information relevant to dishonesty in officers' personnel files.
  • Trial court erred in ordering Sheriff's Dept.'s internal affairs report produced without first redacting portions reflecting investigating officer's analysis and conclusions.
  • D showed no good cause for obtaining prison official personnel records where neither officer was involved in actual activity complained of and D only made general allegations of misconduct without alleging facts.
  • Though DA properly obtained results of Os' urinalysis tests under Pen. Code, results could not be publicly disclosed w/o judicial determination of admissibility, relevancy, and need for protective order.
  • Inspection of testifying officer's personnel records by lawyer for department for impeachment use is neither statutory nor constitutional violation.


    •