Privacy Issues in the Workplace

sufficient particularized showing of threat of harm had been made by the department to prevent disclosure of the names. In that particular case, Long Beach Police Officers Assn. v, City of Long Beach , the Court found that the required showing had not been made and that the names would need to be disclosed. g. Report Prepared following Officer-Involved Shooting Is Subject to Disclosure Once Peace Officer Personnel Information is Redacted In Pasadena Police Officers Association v. Superior Court 365 , a California court of appeals court determined that the Pasadena Police Department had redacted too much information before producing a report prepared by an independent consultant in response to a Public Records Act request. The report evaluated the Pasadena Police Department’s investigation of the shooting of an unarmed teenager by two police officers, the adequacy of the department’s training, and also recommended any needed institutional reforms. The report contained information from a criminal investigation as well as an administrative investigation. The court ordered that information related to employee appraisal (e.g., officers’ personnel information and officers statements made in the course of the department’s administrative investigation) were confidential and must be redacted. However, portions of the report unrelated to employee appraisal (e.g., the department’s criminal investigation) were not confidential and should not have been redacted. The California Attorney General has opined 366 that Penal Code section 832.7(a) does not authorize a district attorney, for the purpose of complying with Brady , to directly review the personnel files of peace officers who will or are expected to be prosecution witnesses to determine whether any Brady issues apply. However, to “facilitate compliance with Brady ,” the CHP may lawfully release to the district attorney’s office the names of officers against whom findings of “dishonesty, moral turpitude, or bias have been sustained, along with the date of the earliest such conduct.” The district attorney may then use this information to comply with Brady requirements. The California Attorney General, in issuing its opinion, relied on People v. Superior Court (Johnson). 367 In Johnson , the California Supreme Court determined that prosecutors do not have unfettered access to the confidential personnel records of police officers who are potential witnesses in a criminal case but must follow the same procedures that apply to criminal defendants in order to obtain information in those records (i.e., filing a Pitchess motion). Thus, the prosecutor may fulfill his or her Brady obligation if he/she informs the defendant that the department has informed the prosecutor that the personnel records of the officer may contain Brady information, and that the officers were important witnesses. h. Release to DA of List of Officers against Whom Findings of Dishonesty, Moral Turpitude or Bias have been Sustained

NOTE: Brady 368 requires the prosecution to disclose to the defense any exculpatory evidence, including potential impeaching evidence. This duty extends to others acting on the prosecution’s behalf, including the police. The criminal

Privacy Issues in the Workplace ©2021 (s) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 112