Warrick

Warrick v. Superior Court

Good Law
2005 Cal. LEXIS 5782·2005 Daily Journal DAR 6347·29 Cal. Rptr. 3d 2·35 Cal. 4th 1011·112 P.3d 2
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJune 2, 2005S115738California13,398 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Kennard, J.

On a showing of good cause a criminal defendant is entitled to discovery of relevant documents or information in the personnel records of a police officer accused of misconduct against the defendant. (Evid. Code, § 1043, subd. (b).) 1 Good cause for discovery exists when the defendant shows both “ ‘materiality’ to the subject matter of the pending litigation and a ‘reasonable belief’ that the agency has the type of information sought.” (City of Santa Cruz v. Municipal Court (1989) 49 Cal.3d 74, 84 [ 260 Cal.Rptr. 520 , 776 P.2d 222 ] (Santa Cruz).) A showing of good cause is measured by “relatively relaxed standards” that serve to “insure the production” for trial court review of “all potentially relevant documents.” (Ibid.)

At issue here is the first part of the good cause requirement—the materiality to the pending litigation of the discovery sought. Specifically, the question is this: What must the defendant show to warrant the court’s in-chambers review of documents or information in the officer’s personnel file that is potentially relevant to the claimed misconduct? We hold that to obtain in-chambers review a defendant need only demonstrate that the scenario of…

dissent Opinion

Brown, J.

Dissenting.—Defendant’s arrest took place in a location known for “blatant use and sales of narcotics.” Police arrived on the scene. They targeted defendant, and defendant began to run, the police in close pursuit. Then, according to defendant’s Pitchess 1 affidavit, some unknown person spilled 42 rocks of cocaine at defendant’s feet as he ran past. Defendant was arrested in possession of an empty baggie and $2.75. Nevertheless, his affidavit asserted he was in the area to purchase, not to sell, narcotics. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeal found defendant’s story that someone else spilled the cocaine utterly unconvincing. And no wonder. When the lion culls the slowest, weakest, or unluckiest from the herd, the other gazelles run a safe distance and then return to grazing. No gazelle commits suicide by flinging itself in the lion’s path. These behaviors are instinctive, and we encounter them in our everyday experiences. When freeway commuters who are traveling faster than the posted speed limit spot a police cruiser in their rearview mirrors, they slow inconspicuously, avoiding any sudden changes that might draw police attention. When the police flashers are activated…

Opinion

Rockard J. Delgadillo, City Attorney, Cheryl J. Ward and Claudia McGee Henry, Assistant City Attorneys, Kim Rodgers Westhoff, Martin R. Boags and Michelle S. Wright, Deputy City Attorneys, for Real Parties in Interest.

On a showing of good cause a criminal defendant is entitled to discovery of relevant documents or information in the personnel records of a police officer accused of misconduct against the defendant. (Evid.Code, § 1043, subd. (b).) [1] Good cause for discovery exists when the defendant shows both "`materiality' to the subject matter of the pending litigation and a `reasonable belief' that the agency has the type of information sought." ( City of Santa Cruz v. Municipal Court (1989) 49 Cal.3d 74, 84 , 260 Cal.Rptr. 520 , 776 P.2d 222 ( Santa Cruz ).) A showing of good cause is measured by "relatively relaxed standards" that serve to "insure the production" for trial court review of "all potentially relevant documents." ( Ibid. )

At issue here is the first part of the good cause requirement—the materiality to the pending litigation of the discovery sought. Specifically, the question is this: What must the defendant show to warrant the court's…

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.