Page 25 - Sept 2017

sure of the Brady list and filed the action. The lawsuit sought an injunction that prohibits disclosure of the list, or any individual on the list, to anyone outside the LASD, including prosecutors, absent complete compliance with the Pitchess statutes described above.
The Court granted the union motion. It held that the ruling, imposed statewide, would materially change the way that discovery of information from peace officer personnel records in criminal cases has been conducted for the past four decades. As a practical matter, it would require all state and local law enforcement agencies to notify prosecutors, on an ongoing basis as cases are filed, whenever an officer who is a witness has a founded alle- gation of misconduct in his or her personnel file relevant to veracity. Such a requirement would affect hundreds of law enforcement agencies and untold numbers of indi- vidual peace officers across the state.
Based upon LASD personnel records, the proposed dis- closure identifies the deputy by name and serial number and connects him or her to administratively sustained allegations of misconduct involving moral turpitude or other bad acts, without first requiring the criminal de- fendant to meet its burden of proving relevancy. The court also held that the prosecution has no obligation to search the law enforcement personnel files. Absent a successful Pitchess motion of its own, the prosecution has no right of access to and thus no constructive pos- session of personnel files or their content.
The Court also made note that potential impeachment must be considered in light of the officer’s particular role in the case: “Not all ‘potential’ LASD witnesses in a crim- inal case, however, will be significant enough that im- peachment information in their personnel files will be material, which Brady requires as a prerequisite to dis- closure. For example, while the credibility of a homicide detective who obtains an unrecorded confession from a murder defendant would likely be a material issue at tri- al, that of a patrol deputy who simply arrests the defen- dant but otherwise generates no incriminating evidence likely would not be. In the latter situation, impeachment information in the deputy’s personnel file likely would not be material under Brady and thus there would be no disclosure obligation.”
The trial court was ordered to strike from the injunc- tion any language that allows real parties, or any par- ties, to disclose the identity of any individual deputy on the LASD’s Brady list to any individual or entity outside the LASD, even if the deputy is a witness in a pending criminal prosecution, absent a properly filed, heard and granted Pitchess motion, accompanied by a correspond- ing court order. Discovery in a criminal case is not in- tended to be a fishing expedition for criminal defense lawyers with an agenda to portray law enforcement in a bad light. After all, the rule of law is meant to be both a sword and a shield — just ask St. Michael. d
CHICAGO LODGE 7 ■ SEPTEMBER 2017 25