Ass'n for L. A. Deputy Sheriffs v. Superior Court of Cal. ex rel. the Cnty. of L. A.
13 Cal. App. 5th 413
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2017Background
- LASD compiled an internal "Brady list" of ~300 deputies with administratively sustained misconduct allegations potentially relevant to impeachment and planned to disclose names/serial numbers to prosecutorial agencies.
- ALADS (union) sued seeking injunctions to prohibit disclosure of the list or identities absent compliance with Pitchess procedures and to block related personnel actions.
- Trial court issued a preliminary injunction barring wholesale disclosure of the list but allowing LASD to notify prosecutors of individual deputies on the list if the deputy was a potential witness in a pending criminal prosecution (reasoning that Brady obligations were triggered).
- ALADS petitioned the Court of Appeal, arguing the Pitchess statutory confidentiality scheme forbids any such disclosure without a filed, heard, and granted Pitchess motion.
- The Court of Appeal reviewed whether Brady (constitutional duty to disclose exculpatory/impeachment material) overrides the Pitchess statutes (Pen. Code §§ 832.7–832.8; Evid. Code §§ 1043–1045) and whether parts of the injunction exceeded the trial court's authority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (ALADS) | Defendant's Argument (Sheriff/LASD & prosecutors) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether LASD may disclose identities of deputies on its Brady list to prosecutors without a filed Pitchess motion when the deputy is a potential witness in a pending prosecution | Such disclosure violates Pitchess confidentiality and must be blocked absent a properly filed, heard, and granted Pitchess motion | Brady/constitutional due process obligates disclosure to prosecutors on the prosecution team; trial court's carve-out (notify prosecutor when deputy is a witness) is necessary to satisfy Brady | Court: Strike injunction language permitting disclosure; Pitchess procedures must be followed — disclosure to prosecutors of deputy identities cannot occur absent a proper Pitchess motion and court order (i.e., ALADS prevails on this point) |
| Whether maintaining an internal Brady list is prohibited or affirmatively authorized by the injunction | Creation/maintenance implicated due process and notice; ALADS sought to prevent creating/keeping the list | LASD argued internal compilation is lawful for internal use and not barred by Pitchess | Court: LASD may compile and maintain an internal Brady list for internal use; injunction language merely clarified it did not prohibit internal lists |
| Whether LASD may transfer or restrict duties of deputies placed on the Brady list without violating POBRA | Transfers/restrictions based on list placement are punitive and violate POBRA | LASD: transfers/restrictions aimed at protecting investigations or addressing credibility — not punitive; affected deputies retain POBRA remedies | Court: ALADS failed to show likelihood of success on POBRA claim; injunction need not bar transfers/restrictions, since transfers are not per se punitive and administrative remedies remain available |
| Whether injunction may allow disclosure of future Brady lists containing only non‑sworn employees | ALADS argued non-sworn employees were not parties and issue exceeded scope of litigation | LASD sought clarification that lists of non‑sworn employees (not covered by POBRA) were not enjoined | Court: Struck language addressing non‑sworn Brady lists as beyond scope; trial court must remove provisions about non‑sworn employees |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (constitutional due process requires prosecution to disclose favorable material evidence)
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (Brady includes impeachment evidence)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (Brady obligation extends to the prosecution team, including law enforcement)
- Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987) (trial court may conduct in camera review of conditionally privileged state files; defendant must first establish basis for claim)
- Pitchess v. Superior Court, 11 Cal.3d 531 (1974) (California rule permitting discovery from peace officer personnel files under showing of good cause; later codified)
- People v. Mooc, 26 Cal.4th 1216 (2001) (describes Pitchess statutory process as established part of criminal procedure)
- People v. Superior Court (Johnson), 61 Cal.4th 696 (2015) (prosecution has no superior right to access Pitchess materials; prosecution fulfills Brady by notifying defense of existence of possible Brady material)
- Copley Press, Inc. v. Superior Court, 39 Cal.4th 1272 (2006) (Pen. Code § 832.7 protects officer identities linked to disciplinary investigations; public disclosure prohibited)
- Commission on Peace Officer Standards & Training v. Superior Court, 42 Cal.4th 278 (2007) (discusses Pitchess confidentiality limits on disclosure)
- Long Beach Police Officers Assn. v. City of Long Beach, 59 Cal.4th 59 (2014) (reiterates protections for officer identities when linked to discipline)
- People v. Gutierrez, 112 Cal.App.4th 1463 (2003) (Pitchess procedures implement Brady; prosecutor has no duty to search personnel files absent Pitchess access)