CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
...Privileges
......Official Information; Info Held by Govt
.........Police Personnel & Complaint Records
............Case Law
 42 Cards On This Topic:
  • Peace officer personnel records include only the types of information enumerated in PC 832.8, not information merely contained in a file that also includes the specified confidential info.
  • Evid. Code §1040 is exclusive public entity claim of government privilege based on secrecy reqs. Section 1042 codifies due process req. DA cannot deprive D of material defense info.
  • Trial ct. did not err in not asking Sheriff's Dept.'s custodian of records about documents in officers' files that were nonresponsive to Pitchess motion and so not produced; Mooc distinguished.
  • Although D may file a Pitchess motion before a prelim. hearing, pendency of motion will not necessarily or invariably constitute good cause for postponing the prelim. hearing over DA's objection.
  • Erroneous denial of Pitchess motion not reversible per se; failure to disclose relevant info in confidential personnel files is reversible only if reasonable probability of a different result had info been disclosed.
  • No abuse of discretion in denying D's Pitchess motion where county counsel's stmts at Pitchess hearing, and trial court's stmts after reviewing V's files, made clear that no info being sought was found in any officer's files.
  • No abuse of discretion in denying Pitchess mtn as to DEA Agent with D on flight from Mex. where D's stmts voluntary, Agent did not help w/arrest, and failure of Mex. Os to give Miranda advisements didn't affect stmts to U.S. Os.
  • No abuse of discretion in concluding D did not meet standard for permitting discovery of info from police personnel files where he did not show police conspiracy to murder or frame him "could or might have occurred."
  • Even if D made good cause showing for Pitchess motion, any error in denying it was harmless in light of extensive evidence linking D to two murders.
  • Reversal required where Court of Appeal applied stricter standard for obtaining in-chambers review of officer personnel information than required by law.
  • DA does not have a right to information disclosed to the defense per Pitchess motion.
  • Because 10-yr-old complaint not material evidence under Brady, and not discoverable under Pitchess as more than 5 yrs old, order directing police to disclose to the defense information about the complaint was improper.
  • Court did not abuse discretion in refusing to disclose officers' personnel files to D after in camera review where not relevant to Os' credibility or D's theories.
  • Court did not abuse discretion in not disclosing items from subset of O's largely irrelevant personnel file; remand for further Pitchess hearing unsupportable.
  • Juvenile court properly determined the patrol car's MAV arrest video is not a personnel record protected by the Pitchess statutes.
  • DA must produce records under CPRA to assist prisoner in investigating whether DA impermissibly sought the death penalty based on race; no reasonable expectation of privacy in docs required to be filed in court when not filed under seal.
  • Pitchess mtn. granted as to reports of Os' dishonesty & false reporting: whether D knew men who approached his car were Os bore on whether he intentionally assaulted and provoked them for purposes of provocative act murder.
  • Court of Appeal's independent review of trial ct.'s in camera Pitchess proceeding showed court did not improperly deny disclosure of discoverable information.
  • Trial court erred in denying P's motion for discovery of police officer personnel files where scope of request narrow and allegations in declaration satisfied relatively low threshold for in camera review.
  • Trial court erred by denying D's motion to preclude People from participating in his efforts to obtain discovery from jury commissioner; nor must D share with People the documents and other information he may obtain thereby.
  • Trial court properly denied posttrial Pitchess motion where records not material to new trial motion re ineffective assistance and disclosure would not have led to different result at trial.
  • W's abuse allegations, H's conduct, and fact other ••women•• may have filed complaints against him, made his personnel records relevant to custody—abuse of discretion not to conduct in camera review of the records.
  • Pitchess motion properly denied where D unable to satisfy the "unquestionably low threshold" of Warrick v. Super. Ct.
  • LA super. ct. practice of requiring all motions be filed and heard 30 days before trial was invalid because where not properly promulgated in accordance with statute or Cal. Rules of Court; P could file Pitchess motion.
  • Limited release to an individual officer of information contained in his own file and disclosed to D via Pitchess motion would not disturb balance between the right to a fair trial and officer's right to privacy.
  • D established good cause and materiality for disclosure of information re workplace violence complaint against arresting sheriff.
  • 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.
  • Statutory Pitchess procedures for disclosure of police personnel record information do not run afoul of Brady v. Maryland.
  • In hybrid Pitchess/Brady motion, court must conduct in camera review of counseling memos in officer records to ascertain whether they had information required to be disclosed to D under Brady.
  • Court abused discretion in denying discovery of arresting Os' personnel files where P challenged Os' account of events by providing his version, thereby making Os' truthfulness material to issues in case.
  • Nothing in statutory scheme which codified Pitchess precludes disclosure of length of O's employment or potentially relevant facts relating to prior law enforcement employment.
  • Trial ct. properly exercised Pitchess discretion in excluding officer personnel files from disclosure where in camera review showed no relevance.
  • When seeking discovery of peace officer personnel records of crim. D who was not officer at time of crime, DA must comply with Evid. Code §1043 et seq. reqs.
  • Motion to discover records of Os who trained with Os involved in D's postarrest interrogation properly denied where no nexus or connection between records and claim to justify discovery.
  • D asserting confession coerced can only request police personnel complaints alleging coercive questioning, not all excessive force complaints; standard of review.
  • Evid. Code §1043 privilege for peace officer personnel records protects ••all•• info in deputy sheriff's file, even if some info can be found elsewhere.
  • D need not show that complaints actually exist; need only show reasonable belief that they may exist; attorney's affidavit on information and belief allegation sufficient.
  • Pitchess motion aimed at showing officers had habit or pattern of extracting confessions by coercion improperly denied.
  • Officers' records discoverable where their actions "inextricably intertwined" in event which provided charges against accused.
  • Pitchess motions properly held in chambers without D or his/her attorney where officer's right to confidentiality at stake.
  • Failure to properly follow discovery procedures is grounds to deny request, even if dept. fails to properly respond.
  • Cases discussing peace officer personnel records.


    •