City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court

This case presents two issues of first impression. First, we consider whether a peace officer’s payroll records are “personnel records” as defined in Penal Code section 832.8, and are therefore subject to the discovery requirements of Evidence Code sections 1043 and 1045, commonly called a Pitchess motion. Second, if payroll records are personnel records, we examine whether there should be an exception to the statutory discovery requirements for marital dissolution proceedings involving the peace officer and his or her spouse.

We answer both questions in the affirmative. The legitimate expectation of privacy recognized and protected by statute includes peace officers’ payroll records. However, there is nothing legitimate about forcing the spouse of a peace officer to expend unwarranted time, energy and money to obtain those records during a dissolution proceeding. When it comes to domestic relationships, peace officers owe their spouses the same fiduciary duty to reveal financial information as any other citizen of this state. Therefore, we deny the petition for writ of mandate.

I

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Robert D. Williamson (Williamson) and Valerie Williamson…