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

Heading: Access to Pitchess Material Is Limited

Text: 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]