Opinion ID: 2519810
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Pitchess Scheme Background

Text: In 1974, our Legislature enacted Penal Code section 832.5, which requires law enforcement agencies to establish a procedure to investigate [citizen] complaints against peace officers. In response to our decision in Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531, 113 Cal.Rptr. 897, 522 P.2d 305, where we held that such complaints are discoverable by a defendant in a criminal prosecution, the Legislature, in 1978, enacted a comprehensive statutory scheme (the Pitchess scheme) to regulate the dissemination of such discovery. Specifically, the Pitchess scheme added Evidence Code sections 1043-1045 and Penal Code sections 832.7 and 832.8. It also amended Penal Code section 832.5 by adding subdivision (b), the five-year retention requirement. (Stats.1978, ch. 630, §§ 1-6, pp.2082-2083.) In City of Santa Cruz v. Municipal Court (1989) 49 Cal.3d 74, 83, 260 Cal. Rptr. 520, 776 P.2d 222 ( City of Santa Cruz ), we stated that the Pitchess scheme was a veritable model of clarity and balance. While this may have been true in 1989, in daily trial practice, the Pitchess pendulum has swung too far in favor of police privacy rights and against the disclosure of relevant evidence.
Before Pitchess discovery is allowed, the defendant must submit an affidavit showing good cause for the discovery sought that sets forth the materiality of such discovery to the subject matter in the pending litigation. (Evid.Code, § 1043, subd. (b)(3).) If the trial court finds that good cause exists, it reviews the requested material in chambers in conformity with Evidence Code section 915. (Evid.Code, § 1045, subd. (b).) The custodian of records does not bring to court the officer's entire personnel file, but only those documents that he or she deems `potentially relevant.' ( People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1229, 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 482, 36 P.3d 21 ( Mooc), quoting City of Santa Cruz, supra, 49 Cal.3d at p. 84, 260 Cal. Rptr. 520, 776 P.2d 222.) [I]n determining [the] relevance of those documents that are brought to the in-chambers hearing, the trial court, which has wide discretion, shall exclude from disclosure (1) [Information consisting of [citizen] complaints concerning conduct occurring more than five years before the event or transaction which is the subject of this litigation (Evid.Code, § 1045, subd. (b)(1)); (2) the conclusions of any officer investigating a [citizen] complaint (Evid. Code, § 1045, subd. (b)(2)); and (3) [f]acts sought to be disclosed which are so remote as to make disclosure of little or no practical benefit (Evid.Code, § 1045, subd. (b)(3)). Evidence Code section 1047 prohibits the disclosure of personnel records of police officers who were not present during the arrest or had no contact with the party seeking disclosure from the time of arrest until the time of booking. Section 1047 was enacted three months after our decision in People v. Memro (1985) 38 Cal.3d 658, 214 Cal.Rptr. 832, 700 P.2d 446, where we had held that such discovery was proper. As of 1998, a citizen complaint, or any portion of a complaint that is determined by the police officer's employing agency to be frivolous, unfounded, or exonerated is removed from the officer's general personnel file and kept in a separate file designated by the police agency. (Pen.Code, § 832.5, subd. (c).) In addition, the court shall issue a protective order that any disclosure be limited to the pending litigation. (Evid. Code, § 1045, subd. (e).) The Attorney General has concluded that the disclosure of peace officer personnel records in violation of Penal Code section 832.7 may constitute a crime under the provisions of Government Code section 1222 if the conditions of the latter statute are met. (82 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 246, 248-249 (1999).) [1] Once disclosure is authorized, the defendant does not receive the citizen complaint or any report prepared investigating such complaint. Instead, discovery is limited to the names, addresses and telephone numbers of complainants and witnesses. As we stated in City of Santa Cruz: As a further safeguard, moreover, the courts have generally refused to disclose the verbatim reports or records of any kind from peace officer personnel files, ordering instead (as the municipal court directed here) that the agency reveal only the name, address and phone number of any prior complainants and witnesses and the dates of the incidents in question. ( City of Santa Cruz, supra, 49 Cal.3d at p. 84, 260 Cal.Rptr. 520, 776 P.2d 222.)
The Pitchess procedure is the sole and exclusive means by which citizen complaints may be obtained. Recent decisions have rejected attempts to use other discovery procedures to obtain Pitchess records. For example, in Garden Grove Police Department v. Superior Court (2001) 89 Cal. App.4th 430, 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 642 ( Garden Grove ), the trial court granted a defense request for three officers to disclose their birth dates so that the prosecutor could conduct a criminal records check. The trial court based its order on Penal Code section 1054.1 and Brady, supra, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215. ( Garden Grove, supra, 89 Cal.App.4th at p. 432, 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 642.) The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the defendant's motion circumvented the Pitchess process .... We cannot allow [the defendant] to make an end run on the Pitchess process by requesting the officers' personnel records under the guise of a Penal Code section 1054.1 and Brady discovery motion. ( Id. at pp. 434-435, 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 642, fns. omitted.) In California Highway Patrol v. Superior Court (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1010, 101 Cal.Rptr.2d 379 ( Highway Patrol ), the trial court ordered production of certain documents from two officers' personnel records, pursuant to People v. Wheeler (1992) 4 Cal.4th 284, 295-297, 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 418, 841 P.2d 938 ( Wheeler ), where we held that nonfelony conduct involving moral turpitude is admissible to impeach a witness in a criminal case. The Court of Appeal reversed. It stated: To grant discovery of peace officer personnel records on the basis that Wheeler permits discovery of all personnel records reflecting officer misconduct involving moral turpitude, without requiring defendant to comply with the good cause requirement of Evidence Code section 1043, would have the effect of destroying the statutory scheme. ( Highway Patrol, supra, at p. 1024, 101 Cal.Rptr.2d 379.) The Court of Appeal therefore denied defendant's request for Pitchess discovery because the defendant's claim, that officer credibility is always at issue in a criminal trial, failed to satisfy the Pitchess good cause requirement. ( Ibid. ) Unless they are directly investigating the police officer, prosecutors, like defense attorneys, do not have any means independent of Pitchess to obtain police officer personnel records. As stated in City of San Jose v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal. App.4th 1135, 1144, footnote 5, 79 Cal. Rptr.2d 624: `[W]here the People seek discovery of the peace officer personnel records ... the district attorney is not exempted under the provisions of Penal Code 832.7, subdivision (a), and must comply with the requirements of Evidence Code sections 1043 et seq.' (Quoting People v. Superior Court (Gremminger ) (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 397, 407, 67 Cal. Rptr.2d 910). Penal Code section 832.5, subdivision (a) requires that citizen complaints be investigated by the officer's employing agency. Pitchess discovery motions generally seek records from an officer's personnel file because that is the location where such complaints are maintained. (See, e.g., Mooc, supra, 26 Cal.4th 1216, 114 Cal. Rptr.2d 482, 36 P.3d 21; City of Santa Cruz, supra, 49 Cal.3d 74, 260 Cal.Rptr. 520, 776 P.2d 222; Highway Patrol, supra, 84 Cal.App.4th 1010, 101 Cal.Rptr.2d 379.) The five-year period of Evidence Code section 1045, subdivision (b)(1) runs from the date of the event that is the subject of the current litigation to the date of the conduct that is the subject of the citizen complaint. But the complaint may not be placed in the officer's personnel file until well after such conduct occurred, thus effectively shortening the five-year period. Specifically, peace officers are protected by the Public Safety Officer's Procedural Bill of Rights Act (Gov.Code, §§ 3300-3311), and are guaranteed various procedural safeguards during the investigation of a citizen complaint (Gov.Code, § 3303), [2] as well as the right to respond a citizen complaint before it is placed in their personnel file. (See Aguilar v. Johnson (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 241, 249-250, 247 Cal.Rptr. 909 [under Gov. Code §§ 3305 and 3306, peace officer must be given notice and opportunity to respond to citizen complaint before the same is placed in officer's personnel file].) Thus, even when a citizen complaint is lodged against an officer on the same date as the alleged misconduct, because it may take months, if not years, for that complaint's investigation to be completed, such complaint may not be available for discovery until well after the five-year period begins to run. [3]