City of Sacramento v. Municipal Court for Sacramento Judicial District

California Court of Appeal Aug 14, 1978 No. Civ. 17035Published

Before: Regan

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that law enforcement agencies are not required to permanently retain records of citizen complaints against officers, and that the destruction of such records pursuant to valid statutory authorization prior to the defendant's arrest does not violate the principles of discovery or evidence preservation.

Issues

Whether the destruction of police personnel records pursuant to statutory authority violates a defendant's right to discovery under Pitchess v. Superior Court.
Whether the destruction of police records constitutes a violation of the duty to preserve evidence under People v. Hitch.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“neither case holds nor suggests that a law enforcement agency has a duty to retain and preserve records permanently that may possibly benefit prospective defendants in future cases.”

“Kinney destroyed records in conformity with these statutory authorizations, and he did so at a time which was several months before the acts took place which resulted in Pope being charged with the crime involved here.”

Opinion

REGAN, J.

On January 21, 1977, real party in interest (hereafter Pope) was arrested by Officers Aurich and Souza of the Sacramento City Police Department for wilfully resisting, delaying, or obstructing them in the performance of their duties, a violation of Penal Code section 148. Pope was subsequently charged in Sacramento Municipal Court with this misdemeanor.

For the purposes of asserting self-defense and for the possible impeachment of prosecution witnesses, Pope sought to discover what citizen complaints of excessive force or violence had been lodged against the two arresting officers during their employment as policemen. Such records were sought on the ground they would reveal the names of persons who could give testimony tending to show the officers had a propensity to use excessive force in making arrests.

A declaration of former Sacramento Chief of Police, William J. Kinney, was filed in the action which showed that on August 13, 1976, he had ordered destruction of all police department internal investigation files concerning investigations which had been completed prior to July 1974. All such files were destroyed, except those which resulted in the termination or resignation of the police officer or which involved pending civil or criminal matters. Furthermore, in any case where, as a result of an investigation conducted by the Internal Investigation Section, any type of discipline was imposed on a police officer by way of reprimand, suspension, or demotion, a letter setting forth the factual basis for such disciplinary action was retained in that officer’s personnel file. Chief Kinney declared he acted under city council resolution 76-181.

[798]

Upon motion of Pope the -municipal court issued a subpoena and a subpoena duces tecum to Kinney, ordering him to testify and to produce documents issued during the preceding two years “which discuss policy regarding disclosure or destruction of information about peace officers,” contained in the police files. Kinney moved to quash the subpoenas. The motion was heard in municipal court and denied.

Kinney and the City of Sacramento sought a prerogative writ in the superior court to prohibit the municipal court from enforcing its subpoena and subpoena duces tecum. The superior court issued a writ of prohibition as prayed. Pope appeals.

City of Sacramento v. Municipal Court for Sacramento Judicial District

AI Brief

REGAN, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief