Long v. Municipal Court

• Decision Date: 26 April 1976
• Docket Number: OAKLAND-PIEDMONT
• Citation: 128 Cal.Rptr. 918,58 Cal.App.3d 382
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: David LONG, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MUNICIPAL COURT FOR theJUDICIAL DISTRICT, Defendant; PEOPLE of the State of California, Real Party in Interest and Respondent. Civ. 37963.

Page 918

128 Cal.Rptr. 918

58 Cal.App.3d 382

David LONG, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MUNICIPAL COURT FOR the OAKLAND-PIEDMONT JUDICIAL DISTRICT, Defendant PEOPLE of the State of California, Real Party in Interest and Respondent.

Civ. 37963.

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

April 26, 1976.

As Modified on Denial of Rehearing May 4, 1976.

James C. Hooley, Public Defender, E. Craig Goldman, Asst. Public Defender, Oakland, for plaintiff and appellant.

Evelle 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 Atts. Gen., San Francisco, for real party in interest and respondent.

THE COURT ^**:

David Long appeals from a judgment denying a writ of mandamus to compel respondent municipal court to grant discovery in a pending misdemeanor case in which appellant is defendant.

Appellant had presented in the municipal court a declaration in support of subpoena duces tecum, executed by counsel, in which it was related that appellant would plead self-defense to the charges of assaulting and obstructing a police officer, that he had no access to the personnel records of the police department, and that the chief of police had in his possession the following items necessary for the preparation of a defense:

'1) Verbatim copies of all reports or records of complaints alleging the use of excessive force or violence in arrests made by Officer S. Bennett, 6914P and Officer Hughes, 6826P, 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 or violence by aforesaid Officer S. Bennett and Officer Hughes 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 or violence by Officer S. Bennett and Officer Hughes.'

The prosecutor did not claim privilege under Evidence Code section 1040. The municipal court, acting on the authority of Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531, 113, Cal.Rptr. 897, 522 P.2d 305, determined that the records in question were potentially discoverable and directed the custodian of records to bring them into court for a determination as to whether the records contained information which should be made available to the defense. The court examined the records In camera, and declared a finding 'that there is nothing contained in either officer's file which shows a propensity for violence. There is no relevant material to the offense charged nor is there any material relevant to any self-defense.' Defense counsel asked the court to state whether the personnel files contained 'the names of witnesses who have made allegations of use of excessive force.' The court declined to answer that question or to make available a reporter's transcript of whatever occurred during the In camera examination of the records.

Appellant concedes that an In camera review by the judge of the material sought to be discovered 'out of the presence of the defendant and his counsel, is a proper procedure for screening the contents of the files so as to limit discovery to (pertinent) material.' It is contended, however, that if production of the contents of the files is not to be ordered the judge should make findings covering the following matters:

'(1) Whether any complaints, made by citizens against the police officer alleging the use of excessive force have been filed or are presently contained in the Internal Services Bureaun files;

'(2) The names and addresses of any and all complainants;

'(3) The dates on which any complaints were filed and the dates to which they relate;

'(4) Whether there was any Internal Services Bureau investigation conducted pursuant to the filing of any complaints;

'(5) Whether there were any hearings held concerning allegations of the use of excessive force by the police officer;

'(6) Whether any disciplinary actions were taken pursuant to a...