People v. Super. Ct. (Johnson), 61 Cal. 4th 696

Defendant Daryl Lee Johnson was charged with domestic violence; two SFPD officers were key prosecution witnesses whose confidential personnel files might contain exculpatory/impeaching material.
SFPD, under an internal Bureau Order, notified the District Attorney that those officers’ files "may" contain Brady material; the DA filed a motion seeking in camera review of the files to identify Brady material.
The superior court ordered the police department to give the DA access to the files (bypassing Pitchess), concluding the DA needed direct access to satisfy Brady; the court denied the DA’s Pitchess-style showing.
The DA and SFPD sought writ review in the Court of Appeal, which held the prosecution may review officer personnel files pre-Pitchess to locate Brady material but must use Pitchess before disclosing anything to defense.
The California Supreme Court granted review and considered (1) whether prosecutors may directly access confidential peace officer personnel records without following Pitchess (Evid. Code §§1043–1045/Pen. Code §832.7), and (2) what the prosecutor must do under Brady once informed by the police that files may contain exculpatory material.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. May prosecutors directly review confidential peace officer personnel records for Brady material without using Pitchess procedures?	DA/SFPD: Yes — prosecutors need access to fulfill Brady; review is not a "disclosure" barred by Penal Code §832.7 and fits the investigatory exception.	Johnson: No — §832.7 and Pitchess procedures bar prosecutorial access absent court-ordered Pitchess review; officers’ privacy must be protected.	Prosecutors must follow the Pitchess statutory procedures to obtain personnel-record information; they do not have unfettered direct access.
2. What satisfies the prosecutor’s Brady obligation after the police notify the DA that records may contain Brady material?	DA/SFPD: DA must search records and disclose material; direct review helps ensure compliance.	Johnson: DA must ensure disclosure of Brady material; Pitchess procedures may be inadequate if DA cannot or will not search.	DA fulfills Brady by informing defense of the police tip (i.e., that specified files might contain Brady material) and allowing the defense to decide whether to bring a Pitchess motion; no suppression occurs if defense can obtain files via Pitchess.

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (constitutional duty to disclose materially exculpatory evidence)
City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, 29 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 2002) (interaction of Brady and Pitchess procedures)
Pitchess v. Superior Court, 11 Cal.3d 531 (Cal. 1974) (defendant’s right to seek officer personnel records; led to statutory Pitchess scheme)
Alford v. Superior Court, 29 Cal.4th 1033 (Cal. 2003) (prosecution has no automatic right to obtain fruits of a defendant’s Pitchess motion)
Mooc v. Superior Court, 26 Cal.4th 1216 (Cal. 2001) (procedures for in camera Pitchess review and custodian obligations)
Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (U.S. 1987) (in camera judicial review can protect confidentiality while satisfying due process)
Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (U.S. 1999) (elements of Brady violation)