Alford v. Superior Court

• Decision Date: 27 February 2003
• Docket Number: No. S098233.,S098233.
• Citation: 63 P.3d 228,130 Cal.Rptr.2d 672,29 Cal.4th 1033
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: Maurice ALFORD et al., Petitioners, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of San Diego County, Respondent; The People et al. Real Parties in Interest.

130 Cal.Rptr.2d 672

29 Cal.4th 1033

63 P.3d 228

Maurice ALFORD et al., Petitioners, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of San Diego County, Respondent;

The People et al. Real Parties in Interest.

No. S098233.

Supreme Court of California.

February 27, 2003.

Rehearing Denied April 16, 2003.¹

Steven J. Carroll, Public Defender, Matthew C. Braner, Gary Gibson and Courtney Cutter, Deputy Public Defenders, for Petitioner Maurice Alford.

Craig J. Leff for Petitioner Donny Love.

Michael P. Judge, Public Defender (Los Angeles), Albert J. Menaster and Mark G. Harvis, Deputy Public Defenders, as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioner Maurice Alford.

Kimiko Burton and Jeff Adachi, Public Defenders (San Francisco), Randall Martin, Chief Attorney, and Stephen L. Rosen, Head Attorney, as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioner Maurice Alford.

No appearance for Respondent.

Casey Gwinn, City Attorney, Anita M. Noone, Assistant City Attorney, Shannon M. Thomas, Carol A. Trujillo and Paul E. Cooper, Deputy City Attorneys, for Real Party in Interest City of San Diego.

Paul J. Pfingst, District Attorney, Thomas F. McArdle and Anthony Lovett, Deputy District Attorneys, for Real Party in Interest the People.

Steve Cooley, District Attorney (Los Angeles), George M. Palmer, Head Deputy District Attorney, and Brentford J. Ferreira, Deputy District Attorney, as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Parties in Interest.

Jones & Mayer, Gregory P. Palmer, Long Beach, and Krista MacNevin Jee for 79 California Cities, California State Sheriffs' Association, California Police Chiefs Association and California Police Officers' Association as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest City of San Diego.

Bobbitt & Pinckard, Everett L. Bobbitt, San Diego, and Sanford A. Toyen for San Diego Police Officers Association as Amicus Curiae.

WERDEGAR, J.

Petitioners Maurice Alford and Donny Love were arrested on drug charges, the specifics of which are not pertinent to this appeal. Because petitioners' narrative of events leading to their arrest differed from that of the arresting officers, they sought to challenge the officers' credibility. Petitioners accordingly moved, in superior court, for Pitchess discovery of past complaints made to the San Diego Police Department regarding any incidents of dishonesty, excessive force, unnecessary violence, racist remarks, or similar misconduct on the part of the arresting officers. (See generally Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531, 113 Cal.Rptr. 897, 522 P.2d 305; Evid.Code, §§ 1043, 1045.)² The superior court initially granted the requested discovery as to two prior incidents but, after reconsidering its ability to fashion an appropriate protective order, reversed itself and denied the motion. On petitioners' application to the Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate, that court issued a writ directing the superior court to fashion an order granting such disclosure on the condition that petitioners' attorneys not disseminate the information so disclosed beyond the criminal proceeding, and permitting the prosecuting attorney to be heard on the motion and to receive the information so disclosed.

Contending the conditions were unauthorized by section 1045, subdivision (e) (hereafter section 1045(e)), petitioner Alford sought review in this court. We granted review, limited to the questions whether the protective order required by section 1045(e) must restrict use of Pitchess information³ to the proceeding in which disclosure is sought, and whether the prosecutor has standing to be heard on the Pitchess motion and to obtain information disclosed to the defense pursuant to such motion.

For the reasons that follow, we conclude the decision of the Court of Appeal must be reversed.

DISCUSSION

A. Statutory Background

Recently, in People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 482, 36 P.3d 21 and City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 1, 124 Cal.Rptr.2d 202, 52 P.3d 129, we have had occasion to review the background of the relevant statutory provisions; we do so again here in furtherance of our analysis. As this court stated in City of Santa Cruz v. Municipal Court (1989) 49 Cal.3d 74, 260 Cal. Rptr. 520, 776 P.2d 222:

"In 1978, the California Legislature codified the privileges and procedures surrounding what had come to be known as `Pitchess motions' (after our decision in Pitchess v. Superior Court [,supra,] 11 Cal.3d 531)<sup>4</sup> through the enactment of Penal Code sections 832.7 and 832.8 and Evidence Code sections 1043 through 1045. The Penal Code provisions define `personnel records' (Pen.Code, § 832.8) and provide that such records are `confidential' and subject to discovery only pursuant to the procedures set forth in the Evidence Code. (Pen.Code, § 832.7.) Evidence Code sections 1043 and 1045 set out the procedures for discovery in detail. As here pertinent, section 1043, subdivision (a) requires a written motion and notice to the governmental agency which has custody of the records sought, and subdivision (b) provides that such motion shall include, inter alia, `(2) A description of the type of records or information sought; and [¶] (3) Affidavits showing good cause for the discovery or disclosure sought, setting forth the materiality thereof to the subject matter involved in the pending litigation and stating upon reasonable belief that such governmental agency identified has such records or information from such records.'

"A finding of `good cause' under section 1043, subdivision (b) is only the first hurdle in the discovery process. Once good cause for discovery has been established, section 1045 provides that the court shall then examine the information `in chambers' in conformity with section 915 (i.e., out of the presence of all persons except the person authorized to claim the privilege and such other persons as he or she is willing to have present), and shall exclude from disclosure several enumerated categories of information, including: (1) complaints more than five years old, (2) the `conclusions of any officer investigating a complaint ...' and (3) facts which are `so remote as to make disclosure of little or no practical benefit.' (§ 1045, subd. (b).)

"In addition to the exclusion of specific categories of information from disclosure, section 1045 establishes general criteria to guide the court's determination and insure that the privacy interests of the officers subject to the motion are protected. Where the issue in litigation concerns the policies or pattern of conduct of the employing agency, the statute requires the court to `consider whether the information sought may be obtained from other records ... which would not necessitate the disclosure of individual personnel records.' (§ 1045, subd. (c).) The law further provides that the court may, in its discretion, `make any order which justice requires to protect the officer or agency from unnecessary annoyance, embarrassment or oppression.' (§ 1045, subd. (d), italics added.) And, finally, the statute mandates that in any case where disclosure is permitted, the court `shall ... order that the records disclosed or discovered shall not be used for any purpose other than a court proceeding pursuant to applicable law.' (§ 1045, subd. (e), italics added.)

"As statutory schemes go the foregoing is a veritable model of clarity and balance. Section 1043 clearly requires a showing of `good cause' for discovery in two general categories: (1) the `materiality' of the information or records sought to the `subject matter involved in the pending litigation,' and (2) a `reasonable belief that the governmental agency has the `type' of information or records sought to be disclosed. (§ 1043, subd. (b).) "The relatively low threshold for discovery embodied in section 1043 is offset, in turn, by section 1045's protective provisions which: (1) explicitly `exclude from disclosure' certain enumerated categories of information (§ 1045, subd. (b)); (2) establish a procedure for in camera inspection by the court prior to any disclosure (§ 1045, subd. (b)); and (3) issue a forceful directive to the courts to consider the privacy interests of the officers whose records are sought and take whatever steps `justice requires' to protect the officers from `unnecessary annoyance, embarrassment or oppression.' (§ 1045, subds.(c), (d) & (e).)

"The statutory scheme thus carefully balances two directly conflicting interests: the peace officer's just claim to confidentiality, and the criminal defendant's equally compelling interest in all information pertinent to his defense. The relatively relaxed standards for a showing of good cause under section 1043, subdivision (b)— `materiality' to the subject matter of the pending litigation and a `reasonable belief that the agency has the type of information sought—insure the production for inspection of all potentially relevant documents. The in camera review procedure and disclosure guidelines set forth in section 1045 guarantee, in turn, a balancing of the officer's privacy interests against the defendant's need for disclosure. As a further safeguard, moreover, the courts have generally refused to disclose verbatim reports or records of any kind from peace officer personnel files, ordering instead ... that the agency reveal only the name, address and phone number of any prior complainants and witnesses and the dates of the incidents in question. [Citations.]" (City of Santa Cruz v. Municipal Court, supra, 49 Cal.3d at pp. 81-84, 260 Cal. Rptr. 520, 776 P.2d 222, fns. omitted.)

A motion for discovery of peace officer personnel records is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, reviewable for abuse. (Pitchess v. Superior Court, supra, 11 Cal.3d at p. 535, 113 Cal.Rptr. 897, 522 P.2d 305; People v. Gill (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 743, 749, 70 Cal. Rptr.2d 369.)

With these principles in mind, we turn to the specific issues presented in this case.

B. Scope of Mandatory Protective Order...