Patterson v. Sharp

ROTH, P. J.

In this petition for mandate, Anna Patterson, petitioner, seeks to compel the county clerk of Los Angeles to issue subpoenas to police off icers of the City of Compton to appear as witnesses in her behalf in an action now pending in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County for personal injuries resulting from an automobile collision.

The county clerk did not issue the subpoenas because petitioner had not paid as a condition precedent a fee of $25 per subpoena as required by section 68097.2 of the Government Code. Said section provides:

[839]

“Any member of the California Highway Patrol, sheriff, deputy sheriff or city policeman who is obliged by a subpoena issued pursuant to Section 68097.1 to attend as a witness, shall receive the salary or other compensation to which he is normally entitled from the public entity by which he is employed during the time that he travels to and from the place where the court or other tribunal is located and while he is required to remain at such place pursuant to such subpoena. He shall also receive from the public entity by which he is employed the actual necessary and reasonable traveling expenses incurred by him in complying with such subpoena.

“The party at whose request such subpoena is issued shall reimburse the public entity the amount of twenty-five dollars ($25) per day for each day that such officer is required to remain in attendance pursuant to such subpoena. The amount of twenty-five dollars ($25) shall be deposited with the clerk of the court or with the tribunal prior to the issuance of a subpoena pursuant to this section. [. . . ; Amended by Stats. 1965, eh. 561, §2.]”

Petitioner names as one of the defendants in her pending superior court action, the City of Compton. She avers a collision between her automobile and a police car driven and occupied by policemen employed by the city. The collision occurred when the police car driving at excessive speed, ran a red light in pursuit of persons who had violated the law. As a consequence of the collision petitioner suffered injuries. Petitioner avers further that on July 8, 1965, she directed subpoenas to investigating police officers and that said investigating police officers have personal knowledge of the facts concerning the accident and that their names appear in the report of their investigation “. . . conducted for and on behalf of the City of Compton, the named defendant . . . said investigation report being furnished to petitioner as a result of pretrial discovery procedures.” Only one officer is named. In this respect petitioner -avers that “. . . Officer Houston, a passenger in the police car involved in this accident, also has personal knowledge of facts relevant to this accident.” Petitioner also avers that: “. . . the testimony of the police officers named in the subpoena is necessary for the proof of her case, ...”