Opinion ID: 4118870
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Pitchess Rulings

Text: The trial court ruled on several motions filed pursuant to Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531. Defendant sought to discover any complaints against Sergeants Olivas and McKenna for incidents of aggression, use of excessive force, dishonesty, or improper interrogation tactics. Based on defendant‘s showing, the court reviewed the records for promises of leniency or other improper interrogation tactics. It found no discoverable information. The court also reviewed Oakland Police Department personnel files in response to Patterson‘s Pitchess motion and found no discoverable information about inappropriate interview tactics. The defense received the officers‘ training records but no additional discovery through Pitchess proceedings. Defendant also sought Pitchess discovery on four CYA officers and seven Alameda County Sheriff‘s deputies. After litigation over the required foundation, the court reviewed all but two of the files.8 The court ordered release of nearly all of the CYA files, subject to a limited protective order. It also ordered discovery of some sheriff‘s department records, including the dates of incidents and names and addresses of individuals involved. When a defendant shows good cause for the discovery of information in an officer‘s personnel records, the trial court must examine the records in camera to determine if any information should be disclosed. (Evid. Code, § 1045; People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1226.) The court may not disclose complaints over five years old, conclusions drawn during an investigation, or facts so remote or irrelevant that their disclosure would be of little benefit. (Evid. Code, § 1045, 8 The court found insufficient cause to review the records of two sheriff‘s deputies. Defendant has not challenged this ruling on appeal. 12 subd. (b); Mooc, at pp. 1226-1227, 1232.) Pitchess rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion. (People v. Jackson (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1164, 1220.) The record includes five large volumes of sealed documents pertaining to all of defendant‘s motions. The trial court made a detailed record of all the materials it found discoverable. Our review confirms that all discoverable materials were properly released. There was no Pitchess error.