In re D.L. CA1/1

Filed 10/17/14 In re D.L. CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

In re D.L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. D.L., A139234 Defendant and Appellant. (San Francisco City & County Super. Ct. No. JW126279)

INTRODUCTION D.L. appeals from the dispositional order entered after he admitted the charge of carrying a concealed weapon in public. He requests we conduct an independent review of the denial of his Pitchess1 motion made prior to his plea, to which the Attorney General does not object. Following our independent review, we conclude the trial court’s order regarding the discoverability of material in police personnel files was not an abuse of discretion, and affirm. BACKGROUND We set forth only those facts pertinent to the issue on appeal. After police detained and searched him near the Sunnydale Housing Development, D.L. was arrested

1 Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess).

1

and charged with one count of carrying a concealed firearm (Pen. Code, § 25400, subds. (a)(2), (c)(4)) and one count of carrying a loaded firearm in public (§ 25850, subds. (a), (c)(4)). He filed a Pitchess motion as to the four San Francisco police officers who participated in his detention and arrest, seeking personnel records and complaints received by the Office of Citizen Complaints. The court entered a stipulated order regarding production of the confidential files regarding the four officers, limited to allegations of police misconduct in three categories: dishonesty, fabrication of evidence, and unlawful search and seizure. At the outset of the hearing on the motion, the court stated it had “already reviewed all the records,” and there was “a lot” of discoverable Pitchess material.2 At the conclusion of the hearing, the court stated “[H]aving reviewed the records as provided to the Court, the Court is going to sign the original protective order with the completed case log sheet attached and the Court will make the following additional orders in connection with this hearing. [¶] That the sealed envelope containing the digital disk, declaration, and log sheet will be filed in the court file and remain sealed unless and until otherwise ordered by this Court. [¶] The San Francisco Police Department shall provide forthwith to defendant through counsel the names and contact information for all complaining parties and witnesses in the document identified for production on the case log sheet. [¶] . . . [¶] . . . And at this time, all the documents including disks, log sheet and our orders are returned back to police legal and now they are ordered deemed the custodian of records for these documents.” The court had earlier in the hearing indicated defense counsel could “pick [the information] up from [the police legal department].”