In People v. Mackreth (2020) 58 Cal. App. 5th 317, review denied (Mar. 30, 2021), defendant Tristian Mackreth was charged with resisting arrest. He filed a Pitchess motion seeking the discovery of personnel records related to the arresting officers. To succeed on a Pitchess motion, the defendant must set forth a plausible factual foundation for the discovery and explain why the records would be material to the defense. In this case, Mackreth argued that the credibility of the officers and their prior use of force might be relevant and material to whether the officers used excessive force in his case and that the officers’ body cameras only show the officers’ perspective and not every single angle was captured on video. The City opposed the motion and asserted that there was no dispute about the force used because the entire incident was captured on video from multiple angles, including the body worn cameras of the officers, an in-car-dash-cam, and the surveillance camera system in the 7-11 store where the arrest took place. The trial court denied Mackreth’s motion, finding that the defense had not shown that the personnel records would be material because the entire incident was recorded. After his conviction, Mackreth raised the issue on appeal.
The
Sixth District Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s ruling and found that officers’
credibility and prior uses of force would not have been material since video
recordings comprehensively documented Mackreth's arrest. Evidence that any of
the officers had lied on prior occasions or used excessive force in the past
would not assist Mackreth in presenting a defense since the undisputed video
evidence demonstrated precisely the force the officers had used on the Mackreth
and how the Mackreth had acted. Thus, absent
a plausible explanation of how some specific conduct that had not been captured
on video might have been misrepresented by one of the officers or might
constitute excessive force, Mackreth could not justify the need to review the officers’
confidential personnel files.
The appellate court’s decision
protects officers’ privacy rights by denying unnecessary review of confidential
personnel records where comprehensive video of an officer’s use of force makes
the discovery of personnel records irrelevant.
