Hackett

Hackett v. Superior Court

Good Law
13 Cal. App. 4th 96·16 Cal. Rptr. 2d 405
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 25, 1996B071643California1,805 words

Opinion

Opinion

Vogel, J.

The question before us is whether the conditional privilege created by section 1043 of the Evidence Code for peace officer personnel records protects all information in a deputy sheriff’s file without regard to whether a particular piece of information can also be found elsewhere. Our answer is that it does.

Facts

Andrew Glin sued Deputy Sheriff Clipper Hackett for damages, alleging that while Glin was a jail inmate, Hackett disciplined him by smashing his face into a wall.

During the course of discovery, Glin served Hackett with interrogatories asking for Hackett’s home address, telephone number, place of birth, driver’s license number and educational background. Hackett refused to answer, contending the information could be obtained, if at all, only after compliance with the procedure spelled out in section 1043 (which together with sections 832.7 and 832.8 of the Penal Code creates a conditional privilege for peace officer personnel records and the information contained in those records). Glin’s motion to compel answers was granted (and Hackett was ordered to pay sanctions), apparently because the trial court perceived a difference between a request for information…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.