63 Cal.App.5th 503
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background
- In Dec. 2017 Oakland officers conducted a mental‑health welfare check that led to a citizen complaint alleging unlawful entry, seizure, and other misconduct.
- The Oakland Police Department cleared the officers after internal interviews; the civilian oversight agency (CPRA) conducted an independent investigation and scheduled supplemental interrogations.
- Counsel for the officers demanded production of all “reports and complaints” under Gov. Code §3303(g) before CPRA’s supplemental interrogations; CPRA refused and proceeded to re‑interrogate the officers.
- CPRA later sustained findings that officers knowingly violated the citizen’s Fourth Amendment rights and had given misleading statements; it recommended discipline.
- The officers and union petitioned for writ of mandate; the trial court — relying on City of Santa Ana — ordered disclosure prior to further interrogation and barred use of interrogation testimony, halting discipline.
- The Court of Appeal reversed: it held §3303(g) does not require automatic pre‑reinterrogation disclosure of reports/complaints; disclosure is governed by the statute’s confidentiality exception and agencies may withhold materials deemed confidential during an active investigation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §3303(g) requires production of investigators’ "reports and complaints" prior to any subsequent interrogation | Petitioners: Santa Ana settled law requires production of reports/complaints before any further interrogation | City: §3303(g) only mandates pre‑interrogation access to tape recordings; other materials are disclosed post‑interrogation or per agency rules | Held: §3303(g) does not automatically require pre‑reinterrogation disclosure; timing is governed by the statute’s confidentiality exception — nonconfidential materials must be provided on request, confidential materials may be withheld during active investigation |
| Scope of "reports and complaints" discoverable under §3303(g) (formal reports vs raw notes) | Petitioners: broad discovery (including underlying witness statements/notes) is necessary to defend | City: "reports"/"complaints" imply formal, final documents; agencies need not produce raw investigative materials | Held: §3303(g) entitles an officer to nonconfidential stenographer notes, reports, and complaints, but the statute leaves room for the agency to designate certain materials confidential; scope disputes turn on confidentiality/designation and context |
| Remedy when agency withholds materials as "advice of counsel" without invoking confidentiality rationale | Petitioners: withholding per Santa Ana warranted exclusion of interrogation testimony and halt to discipline | City: withholding may be justified if materials are confidential; exclusionary relief is not automatic | Held: Reversed trial court; remand for determination whether City properly withheld materials as confidential under §3303(g); confidential materials cannot be used for adverse personnel action unless de‑designated and disclosed |
Key Cases Cited
- Pasadena Police Officers Assn. v. City of Pasadena, 51 Cal.3d 564 (Cal. 1990) (Supreme Court held §3303(g) does not require preinterrogation disclosure of reports and complaints)
- Santa Ana Police Officers’ Assn. v. City of Santa Ana, 13 Cal.App.5th 317 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) (held recordings and reports must be produced prior to any further interrogation)
- San Diego Police Officers Assn. v. City of San Diego, 98 Cal.App.4th 779 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (interpreted “reports and complaints” to include materials like witness recordings and raw notes)
- Gilbert v. City of Sunnyvale, 130 Cal.App.4th 1264 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (concluded “reports”/“complaints” suggest formal documents; recognized agency power to deem materials confidential)
- Davis v. County of Fresno, 22 Cal.App.5th 1122 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (discussed limits and potential harms of preinterrogation disclosure)