Caldwell v. Municipal Court, OAKLAND-PIEDMONT

• Decision Date: 26 April 1976
• Docket Number: OAKLAND-PIEDMONT
• Citation: 129 Cal.Rptr. 834,58 Cal.App.3d 377
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: Dorothy Lee CALDWELL et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. The MUNICIPAL COURT FOR theJUDICIAL DISTRICT, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, Defendant; PEOPLE of the State of California, Real Party in Interest and Respondent. Civ. 37927.

Page 834

129 Cal.Rptr. 834

58 Cal.App.3d 377

Dorothy Lee CALDWELL et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. The MUNICIPAL COURT FOR the OAKLAND-PIEDMONT JUDICIAL DISTRICT, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, Defendant PEOPLE of the State of California, Real Party in Interest and Respondent.

Civ. 37927.

Court of Appeal, First District, Division 4, California.

April 26, 1976.

James C. Hooley, Public Defender, E. Craig Goldman, Asst. Public Defender, Oakland, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Avelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen., Jack R. Winkler, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Crim. Div., Edward P. O'Brien, Asst. Atty. Gen., W. Eric Collins, Linda Ludlow, Deputy Attys. Gen., San Francisco, for defendant-respondent.

THE COURT: ^*

Dorothy Lee Caldwell and Ronnie Caldwell appeal from a judgment denying a writ of mandamus to compel respondent municipal court to grant discovery in a pending misdemeanor case in which appellants are defendants.

The charges against appellants are battery upon Officer Lance House of the Oakland Police Department (Pen.Code, § 243) and obstructing a police officer in the performance of his duty (Pen.Code, § 148). A deputy public defender filed in the municipal court a declaration to obtain a subpoena duces tecum directed to the chief of police to compel production of:

'(1) Copies of all reports and records of complaints alleging the use of excessive force, aggressive conduct and/or violence in arrests made by Officers W. J. Gillespie and J. House, in the course of their employment by the Oakland Police Department.

'(2) Verbatim copies of all investigative reports made as a result of complaints alleging excessive use of force, violence by aforesaid Officers Gillespie and House in the course of their employment by the Oakland Police Department.

'(3) Names and addresses of all persons who have complained to the Oakland Police Department of excessive use of force, aggressive conduct and/or violence by Officers Gillespie and House committed during the course of their employment as officers;

'(4) Verbatim copies of all records, reports, reports of investigations and all other writings pertaining to the use of aggressive conduct, violence and/or excessive force committed by said officers contained in their personnel files;

'(5) Verbatim copies of all records, reports, reports of investigations and all other writings pertaining to the use of aggressive conduct, excessive force and/or violence committed by said officers in the possession of the Bureau of Internal Affairs.'

In the declaration it was stated on information and belief that the charges against appellants arose out of an incident in which Officers Gillespie and House used 'excessive force aggressive conduct and violence.' Declarant stated that he 'believed':

1. That the officers had 'used excessive force, aggressive conduct and violence on other occasions.'

2. That complaints and investigative reports concerning the officers' conduct were in the possession of the police department and were not available 'in the exercise of due diligence.'

3. The information was 'necessary as character evidence of said officers' tendency to use violence, aggressive conduct and excessive force in support of the defense of self-defense.'

The court issued the requested subpoena but later quashed the subpoena on the ground that the declaration was insufficient. The writ proceeding now under review was then commenced in the superior court.

Appell...