8 Cal. 5th 28
Cal.2019Background
- Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department created a Brady list in 2016 after reviewing deputies’ personnel files and sent letters to ~300 deputies notifying them of potential exculpatory/impeachment material in their files.
- The Department’s list flagged deputies based on sustained administrative findings for misconduct under various MPP provisions (e.g., falsification, unreasonable force, tampering with evidence).
- The Association sued to enjoin disclosure of deputies’ identities on the Brady list except through Pitchess procedures; the trial court partially enjoined disclosure and the Court of Appeal expanded the injunction to bar disclosure to prosecutors without a Pitchess motion.
- While the case was pending, Senate Bill 1421 amended Penal Code § 832.7 to make certain categories of officer-misconduct records nonconfidential and publicly inspectable, narrowing the reach of Pitchess confidentiality for specified misconduct.
- The California Supreme Court held that (1) the Department’s Brady list is confidential to the extent it was derived from confidential personnel records, but (2) the Pitchess confidentiality scheme does not prohibit the Department from sharing limited Brady alerts (the identity of an officer who may have impeachment/exculpatory material) with prosecutors for pending criminal cases.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Brady list assembled from personnel files is confidential under Penal Code § 832.7(a) | Association: identities on the Brady list are information "obtained from" confidential personnel records and therefore confidential under § 832.7(a) | Department: list may be nonconfidential or at least not barred from disclosure in limited ways | Held: If list entries derive from confidential personnel records, the identities are confidential under § 832.7(a); SB 1421 makes some categories nonconfidential, but the record here did not show the list was entirely nonconfidential |
| Effect of Senate Bill 1421 on confidentiality | Association: SB 1421 does not eliminate need for Pitchess process for Brady information | Department: SB 1421 renders certain misconduct records nonconfidential, reducing information barred from voluntary disclosure | Held: SB 1421 removed confidentiality for specified categories of records; information "obtained from" those nonconfidential records is likewise not confidential, but SB 1421 did not resolve everything here |
| Whether the Department may share Brady alerts (officer identity + notice that impeachment/exculpatory material may exist) with prosecutors without a Pitchess motion | Association: sharing such alerts is a disclosure of confidential information in violation of § 832.7 and Pitchess; prosecutors must use Pitchess to obtain information | Department: limited, internal sharing with prosecutors is necessary to satisfy Brady and does not equate to public dissemination of personnel records | Held: Department may share limited Brady alerts with prosecutors to ensure Brady compliance; Pitchess confidentiality does not categorically bar such limited prosecutor-directed sharing |
| Whether Johnson v. Superior Court requires forbidding Brady alerts and automatic Pitchess process for prosecutor access | Association: Johnson supports that prosecutors must follow Pitchess to obtain any confidential personnel-derived information | Department: Johnson contemplated and endorsed Brady-alert procedures; it does not compel forbidding alerts | Held: Johnson does not require prohibiting Brady alerts; the Court declines to extend Johnson to bar the limited sharing at issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (constitutional obligation to disclose evidence favorable to the accused)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (collective materiality standard and prosecutor duty to learn of favorable evidence)
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (definition of Brady materiality)
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (impeachment evidence and prosecutor disclosure duties)
- People v. Mooc, 26 Cal.4th 1216 (Pitchess statutory scheme and procedures)
- Copley Press, Inc. v. Superior Court, 39 Cal.4th 1272 (interpretation of § 832.7 confidentiality)
- People v. Johnson, 61 Cal.4th 674 (limits on prosecutors' direct access to confidential personnel records while recognizing Brady-alert practices)
- Riverside County Sheriff's Dept. v. Stiglitz, 60 Cal.4th 624 (balancing discovery interest and officer confidentiality)
- In re Brown, 17 Cal.4th 873 (prosecutor's ultimate responsibility for Brady disclosures)