Ass'n for L. A. Deputy Sheriffs v. Superior Court of Cal. ex rel. the Cnty. of L. A.

*419 INTRODUCTION

The primary issue in this case is whether the nearly 40-year-old California statutory scheme that governs discovery of peace officer personnel records, when applied to criminal cases, violates due process and is therefore unconstitutional.

Petitioner, the Association for Los Angeles County Deputy Sheriffs (ALADS), is the union that represents non-supervisory Los Angeles County Sheriff's deputies. Real party in interest, Jim McDonnell, is the duly elected Sheriff of Los Angeles County (real party). Other real parties in interest include the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (LASD), Los Angeles *57 County, and Does one through 50 (collectively real parties).

In Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83 , 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 ( Brady ), the United States Supreme Court held that constitutional due process creates an affirmative obligation on the part of the prosecution, whether or not requested by the defense, to disclose all evidence within its possession that is exculpatory to a criminal defendant. Exculpatory evidence under Brady includes impeachment evidence. ( Giglio v. United States (1972) 405 U.S. 150 , 153-155, 92 S.Ct. 763 , 31 L.Ed.2d 104…

I concur in the majority opinion with one significant exception. I cannot accept the majority's principal conclusion: that when the personnel records of a peace officer, who is a potential witness in a pending criminal prosecution, *449 contain sustained allegations of misconduct, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (Department) cannot disclose that fact to the prosecutor, "absent a properly filed, heard, and granted Pitchess motion, [ 1 ] accompanied by a corresponding court order." (Maj. opn. ante, at p. 80.) *81 In my view, the Pitchess statutes, 2 construed as we have always done "against the larger background of the prosecution's [ Brady obligation]" ( People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216 , 1225, 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 482 , 36 P.3d 21 ( Mooc )), do not prohibit the disclosures permitted by the trial court's injunction. I conclude the trial court properly harmonized the Brady 3 and Pitchess authorities in refusing to enjoin the Department from disclosing to the district attorney the identity of any deputy on the Department's Brady list who is a potential witness in a pending criminal prosecution.

As explained post , my conclusion is supported by analysis of case…