Principles for Public Safety Employment

available include dismissal of the case, jury instructions regarding the past incidents, preclusion of witness testimony, and contempt. f. Pitchess Standard Applies to Personnel Files of Former Peace Officers The defendant in People v. Moreno 449 was charged with murdering a former county probation officer who lived in the same sober living house as the defendant. The victim had allegedly accused the defendant of stealing money from her and pushing him in the chest. Defendant claimed that he was defending himself or was otherwise provoked. Defendant filed a Pitchess motion to get information from the personnel files retained on the victim when she was a probation officer. Defendant alleged that the personnel files could reveal whether the victim had a history of use of force when arresting people or supervising detainees in custody. Defendant contended the personnel files were related to his potential claims, defenses or impeachment concerning Potter’s use of force, violence, hostility, or aggression. The trial court denied the motion stating that the victim did not provide sufficient grounds to justify his receipt of the files. The jury convicted the defendant of first degree murder. The Court of Appeal, however, held that the defendant’s Pitchess motion should have been granted and ordered conditional reversal pending the trial courts in camera review of Potter's personnel files. The Court found a logical link between the crime charged (murder) and the proposed defenses of pure or imperfect self defense, or the absence of planning and premeditation. The Court rejected the prosecution’s argument that it was extremely unlikely that the victim made an aggressive and unwarranted advance. The Court noted that this is not the test: the factual plausibility requirement is satisfied if the scenario might or could have occurred. The prosecution further argued that the Pitchess motion standard did not apply because Potter was not a peace officer at the time of the alleged crime. The Court noted a lack of authority on the issue, but held that material in a peace officer’s file is still subject to the Pitchess motion standard, even if the officer is no longer a peace officer at the time of the alleged crime. g. Materiality to Litigation A plaintiff in a lawsuit may bring a Pitchess motion to obtain peace officer personnel records. This discovery is not limited to the personnel records of officers who witnessed or committed misconduct. In Riske v. Superior Court (City of Los Angeles) , 450 the Court of Appeal required a department to produce the personnel records of officers who had applied for promotions that the plaintiff, who alleged whistleblower retaliation under Labor Code § 1102.5, had been passed over for. In reaching the determination that Pitchess is not limited to officers who participated in, or witnessed, alleged wrongdoing, the Court explained that the materiality of the records at issue is the dispositive factor in determining whether the records should be disclosed. If the party seeking the information can show that personnel records of officers not involved in the injury are material to the litigation, he or she has satisfied the “good cause” requirement.

Principles for Public Safety Employment ©2022 (s) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 128