Opinion ID: 2519810
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Pitchess Hurdles

Text: 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.)