Privacy Issues in the Workplace

People v. Mooc 412 A case which the California Supreme Court described as generating, “...no small amount of excitement from various governmental entities and organizations across the State...,” the Court held that documents clearly irrelevant to a defendant’s Pitchess motion need not be presented to the trial court for in camera review. Defendant Mooc was charged with committing battery on a custodial detention officer in the employ of the City of Santa Ana. A broad Pitchess motion was filed seeking production of records of complaints, disciplinary actions and witnesses regarding alleged inappropriate use of force by the detention officer, and any and all documents defined by Penal Code section 832.8 as constituting personnel records, including any psychological records. Following the in camera examination, the court ruled that the personnel file material produced for examination had, “...very little, if any, probable value, and based on that and Section 1045 of the Evidence Code, the court is going to decline allowing the defendant to peruse the officer’s personnel records.” Following his conviction, the defendant appealed and moved that the Court of Appeal augment the record in the case by including those personnel records which were produced at the trial-level Pitchess proceeding. After being provided with a significantly greater volume of documents than were apparently provided to the trial court, the Court of Appeal reversed the conviction and ordered the trial court to conduct a new in camera hearing where the complete personnel file was subject to the in camera review. The Supreme Court reversed, holding among other things, that that the custodian of records is not always required to produce the entire personnel file in response to a Pitchess motion. Additionally, the Supreme Court also established a detailed, proper method for reviewing a challenged Pitchess process.

a. Determining Relevancy of Documents When served with a Pitchess motion, the custodian of records should engage in the following analysis to determine which documents should be presented to the trial court if an in camera review is ordered. Only those peace officer personnel records that are relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending case should be presented. For example, although records relevant to a criminal case involving a battery on an officer will generally consist of documentation regarding complaints of excessive force, those records would likely be irrelevant in a civil proceeding where the plaintiff’s allegations consist of negligence by an officer in operation of a motor vehicle.

The analysis is as follows:

 Carefully read the Pitchess motion and its attachments in order to determine the nature of the documents that are relevant to the particular proceeding which is the subject of the motion.

Privacy Issues in the Workplace ©2019 (s) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 119