Herrera v. Superior Court

Opinion

ASHBY, J.

In this original proceeding, we address the procedure to be followed when the court conducts an

in camera

review of police personnel records pursuant to a motion for discovery (Evid. Code, §§ 915, 1043, 1045;

Pitchess

v.

Superior Court

(1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 [113 Cal.Rptr. 897, 522 P.2d 305]), and the moving party seeks appellate review of the court’s ruling on that motion.

1

Facts

Petitioner is awaiting trial on charges of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (a)), driving with a blood alcohol level above .10 percent (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (b)), battery on a police officer (Pen. Code, § 243, subd. (b)), and resisting a peace officer (Pen. Code, § 148). As to the latter two counts, petitioner claims that the officers used excessive force and his actions constituted self-defense.

During pretrial discovery, petitioner made a motion for production of the personnel files of the three Los Angeles Police Department officers involved in his arrest. Accompanying the motion was an affidavit of petitioner’s counsel that evidence of prior complaints against the officers of use of excessive force would be relevant to support petitioner’s claim of self-defense, since the records might show that the officers had a propensity toward “aggression and violence.” The People did not oppose the request.

[1162]

The People produced the personnel files of the three officers involved and the municipal court conducted

in camera

reviews of the files over a period of several days. The court ordered that the defense receive copies of three complaints, one for each officer involved. These included the names and addresses of witnesses for each complaint. Defense counsel then asked the court if there were any complaints which were not ordered disclosed, and if so, the reasons why disclosure was withheld. The People objected that such disclosure would violate the officers’ right to confidentiality and that the