As predicted, in an opinion authored by Chief Justice
Cantil-Sakauye, the California Supreme Court upheld the legality of “Brady tips” by law enforcement agencies
to prosecutors when an officer is potential witness in a pending prosecution. It
must be noted, however, that the Court’s decision did not change the fact that
when an officer’s identifying information (i.e. name) is placed on a Brady list, that fact and information as
to why the officer was placed on the Brady
list is confidential by law under Penal Code section 832.7(a).
The long-awaited, unanimous decision was issued today and
answered the question of whether a law enforcement agency may disclose to the
prosecution the name and identifying number of an officer and that the
officer may have relevant exonerating and impeaching material in that officer’s
confidential personnel file. The Court ultimately held that a law enforcement
agency does not violate Penal Code section 832.7(a) if they advise the
prosecution that a pending, peace officer prosecution witness may have relevant
exonerating or impeachment material in that officer’s confidential personnel
file.
The Court’s decision is rooted in the Fourteenth Amendment
to the United States Constitution that prohibits the states from denying any
person due process of law. Based on the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of the
right to a fair trial, the United States Supreme Court in Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83, held that prosecutors must
disclose to the defense evidence that is “favorable” to the accused and
“material” to guilt or punishment. Thus, if the evidence helps the defense or
hurts the prosecution (i.e. it impeaches a prosecution witness) and if there is
a reasonable probability that the failure to disclose such evidence could
affect the result of the trial, the prosecution team has a constitutional
obligation to provide that evidence to the defense.
This case began in 2016 when the Los Angeles County
Sheriff’s Department advised approximately 300 deputies that the Department was
going to provide their names to the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s
Office because their personnel files contained potential exculpatory and/or
impeachment material. The Association for Los Angles Deputy Sheriffs (“ALADS”)
filed a writ of mandate and a complaint seeking preliminary and permanent
injunctive relief to prohibit the Department from disclosing the names of its
members. The trial court held that although the identifying information of
officers is confidential, the Department is not barred from disclosing that an
individual is on the Department’s Brady
list when that deputy is a potential witness in a pending criminal prosecution.
After ALADS appealed the trial court’s decision, the Court of Appeal held that
absent a Pitchess motion the
Department cannot even disclose to a prosecutor the name of an officer who may
have Brady material in their
personnel file.
The crux of the problem with the Court of Appeal decision
was that without Brady tips a
prosecutor would be unable to fulfill their constitutional Brady obligation to defendants. In fact, in their previous decision
regarding confidentiality in peace officer personnel files, the same California
Supreme Court praised Brady tips as a
method of accomplish a workable balance between the confidentiality of peace
officer personnel records and the fundamental due process rights of defendants.
Mastagni Holstedt and the Berry Wilkinson Law Group were honored to file an amicus brief in this appeal on behalf of PORAC and the PORAC Legal Defense Fund asking the Court to detemine whether S.B. 1421 should be applied retroactively. Unfortunately, the Court declined to address the
retroactivity of SB 1421, the California Public Records Act exception to Pitchess which has been codified in
Penal Code section 832.7(b).
