Serrano v. Superior Court
B282975
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 30, 2017Background
- Deputy Halloran stopped Manuel Serrano after observing lane violations; Halloran searched the vehicle after a K‑9 alert and found ~2.5 pounds of suspected cocaine; Serrano was arrested.
- The district attorney notified Serrano’s counsel that Halloran’s personnel file might contain Brady material (impeachment/exculpatory evidence).
- Serrano filed a Pitchess motion (in camera review of officer personnel file) supported by counsel’s declaration explaining Halloran’s credibility was material to suppression and trial.
- LASD opposed, arguing Serrano failed to allege specific officer misconduct as required by Pitchess/Warrick; trial court denied the motion for failure to allege misconduct.
- Serrano petitioned for writ of mandate; the Court of Appeal granted the petition and directed the trial court to order in camera review of Halloran’s personnel file.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a defendant must allege specific officer misconduct to trigger Pitchess in‑camera review when prosecutor notifies defense that personnel file may contain Brady material | Serrano: No. Notice that Brady material exists plus a short explanation of why officer credibility matters satisfies Pitchess threshold (per Johnson) | LASD: Warrick requires alleging specific, plausible officer misconduct and showing materiality tied to that misconduct | Held: Where prosecution notifies defense that Brady material exists in an officer’s file, defendant need not allege specific misconduct; counsel’s declaration showing materiality of officer credibility suffices to trigger in‑camera review (Johnson and Ritchie controlling). |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Superior Court (Johnson), 61 Cal.4th 696 (Cal. 2015) (when prosecutor notifies defense of possible Brady material in officer files, notice plus explanation of relevance satisfies Pitchess threshold)
- Warrick v. Superior Court, 35 Cal.4th 1011 (Cal. 2005) (Pitchess discovery requires a factually specific, plausible showing of officer misconduct in ordinary Pitchess cases)
- Pitchess v. Superior Court, 11 Cal.3d 531 (Cal. 1974) (established statutory/procedural framework for discovery of peace officer personnel records)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (prosecution must disclose exculpatory and impeachment evidence material to guilt or punishment)
- Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (U.S. 1987) (trial court must conduct in camera review of confidential files when there is a reasonable basis to believe they contain material evidence)