Rezek v. Superior Court
206 Cal. App. 4th 633
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Rezek is charged in Orange County Superior Court with delay/obstruction of an officer (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)) and vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (a)) for a crosswalk incident involving a private security guard and two plainclothes officers.
- Rezek contends he slapped a vehicle hood during the incident and alleges he was assaulted by officers during arrest, with injuries including a probable arm fracture.
- An earlier Pitchess motion gave defense access to the arresting officers’ personnel-file information; seven witness statements from a 2004 excessive-force incident were disclosed after the initial motion.
- The present supplemental motion sought verbatim statements of percipient witnesses to the charged incident obtained through internal affairs; the trial court denied it before trial.
- The Supreme Court transferred the matter to this court and issued an alternative writ of mandate directing in camera review and potential disclosure of relevant statements.
- The petition for review was denied, and the present decision ultimately grants relief directing disclosure of nonprecluded statements upon in camera review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statements from an internal affairs investigation are discoverable | Rezek: statements are discoverable with good cause | Tustin: confidential personnel-file contents are privileged | Yes; statements are discoverable if good cause shown and not precluded by statute. |
| Whether Penal Code 1054.1 is exclusive for witness statements in personnel files | Gaines: 1054.1 is not exclusive; Pitchess applies | Prosecution must still follow 1054.1, but Pitchess can supplement | Not exclusive; Pitchess procedures may compel discovery of statements in personnel files. |
| Whether the defense’s good-cause showing requires in camera review | Defense demonstrated plausible factual foundation and materiality | Court could limit disclosure based on privacy and statutory limits | In camera review required; information discloseable if not barred by 1045. |
| Whether the trial court erred in denying discovery without in camera review | denial was abuse of discretion; defendant entitled to review | Courts should defer to prosecutors’ discovery obligations | Yes; trial court abused discretion and must conduct in camera review and disclose. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pitchess v. Superior Court, 11 Cal.3d 531 (Cal. 1974) (establishes discovery of complaints of excessive force in personnel files under good cause)
- People v. Gaines, 46 Cal.4th 172 (Cal. 2009) (good cause standard for discovery under Evid. Code § 1043(b))
- Warrick v. Superior Court, 35 Cal.4th 1011 (Cal. 2005) (good-cause showing may be based on materiality and defense plausibility)
- Chambers v. Superior Court, 42 Cal.4th 673 (Cal. 2007) (in camera review framework for Pitchess disclosures)
- Haggerty v. Superior Court, 117 Cal.App.4th 1079 (Cal.App. 2004) (confidentiality vs. disclosure of officer records in Pitchess matters)
- Robinson v. Superior Court, 76 Cal.App.3d 968 (Cal.App. 1978) (statements of percipient witnesses discoverable under Pitchess standards)
- Galindo v. Superior Court, 50 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 2010) (limits and scope of Pitchess disclosures; balance with privacy rights)
- City of San Jose v. Superior Court, 5 Cal.4th 47 (Cal. 1993) (statutory interpretation of disclosure obligations in investigation records)
- Gaines, 46 Cal.4th 172 (Cal. 2009) (discusses good cause and Evid. Code § 1043 effectiveness)