Page 123 - REDEMPTION_Flipbook_Final 2025
P. 123

- Geraldine Hughes -

                           there is no authority which prohibits law enforcement access
                           to Civil Discovery.
                                 Mr. Garcetti and Mr. Sneddon further stated that the case
                           which Mr. Cochran relied on, Pacers Inc. v. Superior Court,
                           was decided before the passage of Proposition 115, California
                           Constitution, Article I, Section 28(d), which prohibits the ex-
                           clusion of relevant evidence in a criminal proceeding and Sec-
                           tion 30(c) requires reciprocal discovery. Under Proposition 115,
                           only Fifth Amendment self-incrimination discovery remains
                           protected. In decisions upholding Proposition 115, both legis-
                           lative and judicial recognition of strong public policy to pro-
                           mote balance and fairness in our Criminal Justice System and
                           to remove roadblocks which hinder the ascertainment of the
                           truth. In essence, the criminal investigation should be unim-
                           peded.
                                 They contended that a search warrant may be issued when:
                           "The property or things to be seized consist of any item or
                           constitutes any evidence which tends to show a felony has been
                           committed or tends to show that a particular person has com-
                           mitted a felony." Penal Code 1524(a)(4). Subpoenas may be
                           issued for: "Those witnesses whose testimony, in his opinion,
                           is material in an investigation before the Grand Jury." Penal
                           Code 939.2.
                                  They said that privacy rights must yield to a criminal inves-
                           tigation. Absent violation of the Fourth Amendment privacy
                           rights cannot be justification for preventing the state from in-
                           vestigating criminal activity where there is probable cause.
                           Although Mr. Cochran did not make this point, they also stated
                           that, "fear of getting caught," was not a privacy right. In case
                           criminal charges are filed, and whatever is filed or introduced
                           or said in court then becomes a matter of public records.


                                   Opposition to Protective Order by Radio & Television News
                           Assn.
                                   An opposition to Mr. Cochran's motion for protective or-
                           der was filed by the Radio & Television News Assn. Of South-
                           ern California. Its position was the same as the others that op-



                           122
   118   119   120   121   122   123   124   125   126   127   128