Pitchess motion in California

2026“When a trial court concludes a defendant’s Pitchess motion shows good cause for discovery of relevant evidence contained in a law enforcement officer’s personnel files, the custodian of the records is obligated to bring to the trial court all ‘potentially relevant’ documents to permit the trial court to examine them for itself. [Citation.]” (People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1228-1229 .) To permit “future appellate review,” the trial court should “make a record of what documents it examined before ruling on the Pitchess motion.” (Id. at p. 1229.) An appellate court reviews a trial court’

2026Code, §§ 1041, 1042, subd. (d),14 regarding the nondisclosure of a confidential informant’s identity]; People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1226 [describing the trial court’s examination of documents in chambers pursuant to a Pitchess motion under Evid.

2026(Young, supra, 79 Cal.App.5th at pp. 158-159; id. at pp. 158-161.) Drawing on the Pitchess standard, Young “conclude[d] that in order to establish good cause for discovery under the Racial Justice Act, a defendant is required only to advance a plausible factual foundation, based on specific facts, that a violation of the Racial Justice Act ‘could or might have occurred’ in this case.” (Young, at p. 159, quoting Warrick v. Superior Court (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1011, 1016 .) Young held that the good cause standard under section 745(d) is “even more relaxed than” the Pitchess standard in the following

2026(Young, supra, 79 Cal.App.5th at pp. 158-159; id. at pp. 158-161.) Drawing on the Pitchess standard, Young “conclude[d] that in order to establish good cause for discovery under the Racial Justice Act, a defendant is required only to advance a plausible factual foundation, based on specific facts, that a violation of the Racial Justice Act ‘could or might have occurred’ in this case.” (Young, at p. 159, quoting Warrick v. Superior Court (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1011, 1016 .) Young held that the good cause standard under section 745(d) is “even more relaxed than” the Pitchess standard in the following

2025(Alford v. Superior Court (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1033, 1039 [a court has broad discretion in ruling on a Pitchess motion, and its ruling will not be disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion].) In this part of the discussion, we shall: 1) review general principles of law regarding Pitchess motions; 2) summarize the trial court proceedings; and 3) analyze the law as applied to the facts. 25 1.

2025(See Alford v. Superior Court, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 1039 [a court has broad discretion in ruling on a Pitchess motion].) 32 E.

2025We therefore remand the case for the trial court “ ‘to hold a hearing to augment the record with the evidence [it] . . . considered in chambers when it ruled on the Pitchess motion.’ ” (People v. Gaines (2009) 46 Cal.4th 172 , 180– 181 (Gaines).) In addition, if the custodian did not produce Detective Tran’s entire file, the court must ensure the record adequately reflects the custodian’s reasoning for withholding documents.

2025(People v. Dalton (2019) 7 Cal.5th 166, 214 ; People v. Clark (2011) 52 Cal.4th 856, 931 [“A witness may be impeached with any prior conduct involving moral turpitude whether or not it resulted in a 12 felony conviction, subject to the trial court's exercise of discretion under Evidence Code section 352”].)3 “To obtain relief, . . . a defendant who has established that the trial court erred in denying Pitchess discovery must also demonstrate a reasonable probability of a different outcome had the evidence been disclosed.” (People v. Gaines (2009) 46 Cal.4th 172, 182 .) Thus, the remedy for Pit

2023(City of Santa Cruz v. Municipal Court (1989) 49 Cal.3d 74, 84 .) “When a trial court concludes a defendant’s Pitchess motion shows good cause for discovery of relevant evidence contained in a law enforcement officer’s personnel files, the custodian of the records is obligated to bring to the trial court all ‘potentially relevant’ documents to permit the trial court to examine them for itself.” (People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216 , 1228–1229 (Mooc).) “Documents clearly irrelevant to a defendant’s Pitchess request need not be presented to the trial court for in camera review.

2022(City of Santa Cruz v. Municipal Court (1989) 49 Cal.3d 74, 83 .) We review a trial court’s denial of a Pitchess motion for an abuse of discretion.

2026“Trial courts are granted wide discretion when ruling on motions to discover police officer personnel records.” (People v. Samayoa (1997) 15 Cal.4th 795, 827 .) We have reviewed the sealed in-camera Pitchess hearing transcript.

2023(Mooc, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 1229 ; see People v. Samayoa (1997) 15 Cal.4th 795, 825 [after ruling on the Pitchess motion, “[t]he magistrate ordered that all remaining materials be copied and sealed”].) “Such a record will permit future appellate review.” (Mooc, at p. 1229.) The trial court’s decision as to whether the contents of a police personnel file are discoverable is subject to review under the abuse of discretion standard.

2023Analysis Defendant argues the court should have granted his Pitchess motion because “if the records disclosed a history of dishonesty with respect to the critical law enforcement witnesses who testified against him, [defendant’s] trial counsel necessarily rendered ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to adequately investigate such claims by filing a Pitchess motion [before trial].” We disagree. 6 “Evidence Code sections 1043 through 1045 codify [Pitchess]. ‘The statutory scheme carefully balances two directly conflicting interests: the peace officer’s just claim to confidentiality, and

2021(People v. Jackson (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1164, 1220-1221 .) Upon review of the sealed record of the in camera proceedings, we conclude the trial court properly exercised its discretion in determining that the documents produced complied with the scope of the Pitchess motion, and that only one of the documents should be disclosed to the defense. and disclose to that party any information they contain that is material to the underlying case.

2026He therefore requests we reverse the matter for a 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated. 2 Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess). 2 new Pitchess hearing with a different custodian of records.

2025General Legal Principles A defendant’s motion to discover an officer’s personnel file that purportedly contains information helpful to his or her defense, is commonly called a Pitchess motion. ( Pitchess, supra, 11 Cal.3d. 531.) The Legislature has largely codified Pitchess procedures.

2023(People v. Hughes (2002) 27 Cal.4th 287, 330 .) Defendant also asks us to independently review the sealed record in connection with his Pitchess motion to compel disclosure of records related to the blood draws taken from Sergeant Stevens and Deputy Green as part of the officer involved shooting investigation conducted by the Calaveras County Sheriff’s Office, and to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the request.

2023The decision will be reversed only on a showing of abuse of discretion.” (People v. Yearwood (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 161, 180 , citing People v. Hughes (2002) 27 Cal.4th 287, 330 .) Any error by the trial court in denying a Pitchess motion is reviewed under the Watson3 harmless error standard.

2014(See People v. Memro (1985) 38 Cal.3d 658, 675 , overruled on another ground in People v. Gaines (2009) 46 Cal.4th 172, 181, fn. 2 .) We review the grant or denial of a Pitchess motion, for abuse of discretion.

2009J., Kennard, J., Werdegar, J., Chin, J., Moreno, J., and Corrigan, J., concurred. 1 These background facts are taken largely from the recital contained in the Court of Appeal opinion. 2 There is language in People v. Memro (1985) 38 Cal.3d 658 [ 214 Cal.Rptr. 832 , 700 P.2d 446 ] to suggest that an outright reversal, not a remand, is the appropriate remedy when the trial court erroneously denies a Pitchess motion without conducting an in camera review of the requested documents.

2025(See id. at p. 1229; People v. Guevara, supra, 148 Cal.App.4th at p. 69 .) Thus, the record is inadequate to permit meaningful review of Garcia’s claim, and on remand the court must hold a new in camera hearing on her Pitchess motion.

2023The custodian should be prepared to state in chambers and for the record what other documents (or category of documents) not presented to the court were included in the complete personnel record, and why those were deemed irrelevant or otherwise nonresponsive to the defendant's Pitchess motion.” (Mooc, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 1229 .) 13 The instant case is like People v. Guevara (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 62 (Guevara).

2025Code, § 1043, subd. (b).) “There is a ‘relatively low threshold’ for establishing the good cause necessary to compel in camera review by the court.” (People v. Thompson (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1312, 1316 (Thompson).) To establish good cause, “defense counsel’s declaration in support of a Pitchess motion must propose a defense or defenses to the pending charges” and articulate how the 26 discovery sought might be admissible or lead to relevant evidence.

2025Application and Analysis A Pitchess motion is properly denied if “it is not internally consistent or complete.” (Thompson, supra, 141 Cal.App.4th at p. 1317 , italics added.) In Thompson, defendant was arrested for selling illegal narcotics to an undercover officer who was “part of the narcotics ‘buy team’ of the Los Angeles Police Department.” (Id. at p. 1315.) Defendant filed a Pitchess motion seeking an in camera review of the personnel records and other documents of several “officers and detectives who were involved in the drug transaction.” (Id. at pp. 1315–1316.) A declaration by defenda

2015For example, in People v. Samuels, 20 supra, 36 Cal.4th 96 , the trial court denied the defendant’s Pitchess motion.

2015That factual scenario, depending on the circumstances of the case, may consist of a denial of the facts asserted in the police report.” (Id. at pp. 1024– 1025.) “[T]he good cause requirement embodies a ‘relatively low threshold’ for discovery.” (People v. Samuels (2005) 36 Cal.4th 96, 109 .) “The court then determines whether defendant’s averments, ‘[v]iewed in conjunction with the police reports’ and any other documents, suffice to ‘establish a plausible factual foundation’ for the alleged officer misconduct and to ‘articulate a valid theory as to how the information sought might be admissibl

2024The guidelines and motion procedure for such discovery were first established by the California Supreme Court in Pitchess v. Superior Court, supra, 11 Cal.3d 531 .” (California Highway Patrol v. Superior Court (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1010, 1019 .) A motion to obtain such records is known as a Pitchess motion.

2016(California Highway Patrol v. Superior Court (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1010, 1020 .) Further, to show good cause for discovery, a Pitchess motion must include “‘[a]ffidavits showing good cause for the discovery or disclosure sought, setting forth the materiality thereof to the subject matter involved in the pending litigation and stating upon reasonable belief that the governmental agency identified has the records or information from the records.’” (People v. Mooc, at p. 1226.) Good cause requires a “‘specific factual scenario’ which establishes a ‘plausible factual foundation’ for the allegation

2025We need not remand the case to the court to the conduct an in camera review on the discovery motion because good cause was not shown in the first instance. ( Hustead, supra, 74 Cal.App.4th at pp. 418–419.) Moreover, prejudice cannot be shown on this record, where judicial notice was requested by defense counsel and there is nothing showing the court did not take judicial notice of the previous Pitchess motion.

2025Hustead, supra, 74 Cal.App.4th at pp. 418–419 [Pitchess motion supported by declaration of counsel asserting that officer had made material misstatements and stating that officer’s credibility would be material issue in trial]; People v. Gill (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 743 , 750–751 [good cause for Pitchess discovery was established when the defendant sought complaints against the specific officer who searched him and alleged the officer had planted the contraband to cover up for the use of excessive force].) At the hearing, the trial court rightly pointed out there was no plausible, factual scenar

2021(See People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1228-1229 [to permit “meaningful appellate review,” the trial court must make a record of the documents examined by photocopying them, making a list of them, or stating on the record what documents it reviewed]; People v. Wycoff (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 410 , 415- 416 [conditionally reversing and remanding for a new Pitchess hearing in part because 3 the custodian of records did not provide either the complete personnel file or a summary of the documents that were not presented for the court’s review].) Accordingly, our review is limited to the sealed

2021(See People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1228-1229 [to permit “meaningful appellate review,” the trial court must make a record of the documents examined by photocopying them, making a list of them, or stating on the record what documents it reviewed]; People v. Wycoff (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 410 , 415- 416 [conditionally reversing and remanding for a new Pitchess hearing in part because 3 the custodian of records did not provide either the complete personnel file or a summary of the documents that were not presented for the court’s review].) Accordingly, our review is limited to the sealed

2025In the context of a classic Pitchess motion, the safeguard of limiting disclosures to name and contact information is permissible because “ ‘the relevance of the information sought is minimal and the officer’s privacy concerns are substantial.’ ” (Warrick, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 1019 , italics added; accord, City of Tulare v. Superior Court (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 373, 383 ; Becerrada v. Superior Court (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 409, 414 ; Haggerty v. Superior Court (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1079, 1090 .) As discussed, when undertaking an in camera review after granting a classic Pitchess motion, a c

2023(Haggerty v. Superior Court (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1079, 1090 (Haggerty); accord, City of San Jose v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 47, 55 .) On prejudice resulting from an erroneous Pitchess motion ruling, the movant must carry a burden to subsequently show a reasonable probability that a different outcome in the litigation underlying the motion would have resulted absent the error.

2026It is telling that Santos’s counsel represented in the declaration he filed in support of the Pitchess motion that the personnel records Santos was requesting were “necessary in order to properly prepare the case for trial . . . .” (Italics added.) Defense counsel further asserted, “[T]he body worn video evidence directly contradicts the allegation that any drugs were found in the satchel, thereby undermining all statements from [Officers Villanueva and Mitchell].” Defense counsel also represented in the motion Santos’s “defense may be that the 8 (See Collins, supra, 115 Cal.App.4th at pp. 141

2025(See, e.g., People v. Collins (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 137, 151 [trial court’s denial of the defendant’s Pitchess motion was not an abuse of discretion when the defendant failed to show how the officers were involved or allege any facts that provided reason to believe misconduct had occurred]; see also People v. Sanderson (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1334, 1341 .) The record fails to show Johnson suffered prejudice by his attorney’s failure to include an additional factual scenario as to Felix, Joseph, Lozano, Short, and Guitron in his third Pitchess motion.

2017In City of Los Angeles , the court held that the Pitchess statutes' limitation of discoverable complaints to those five years old or less does not violate the requirements of Brady . ( City of Los Angeles, supra , 29 Cal.4th at p. 16, 124 Cal.Rptr.2d 202 , 52 P.3d 129 .) In defense of its holding, the court agreed with the Attorney General that the " ' " Pitchess process" operates in parallel with Brady and does not prohibit the disclosure of Brady information.' " ( City of Los Angeles, at p. 14, 124 Cal.Rptr.2d 202 , 52 P.3d 129 .) In Mooc , the court "examine[d] the nuts and bolts of a Pitch

2017In City of Los Angeles , the court held that the Pitchess statutes' limitation of discoverable complaints to those five years old or less does not violate the requirements of Brady . ( City of Los Angeles, supra , 29 Cal.4th at p. 16, 124 Cal.Rptr.2d 202 , 52 P.3d 129 .) In defense of its holding, the court agreed with the Attorney General that the " ' " Pitchess process" operates in parallel with Brady and does not prohibit the disclosure of Brady information.' " ( City of Los Angeles, at p. 14, 124 Cal.Rptr.2d 202 , 52 P.3d 129 .) In Mooc , the court "examine[d] the nuts and bolts of a Pitch

2025(See People v. Prince, supra, 40 Cal.4th at pp. 1285-1286 [in some circumstances it suffices for the court to state for the record what documents it examined].) We have reviewed the record under seal and independently conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its ruling upon the Pitchess motion.

2025We routinely grant such requests “ ‘to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a defendant’s motion for disclosure of police personnel records.’ ” (People v. Myles (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1181, 1209 .) Here, “[w]e have reviewed the record under seal and independently conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its ruling upon the Pitchess motion.” (People v. Prince (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1179, 1286 .) DISPOSITION We affirm.

2025Code, §§ 1043, 1045.)” (People v. Superior Court (Johnson) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 696, 705 (Johnson).) 10 Appellant filed a Pitchess motion seeking discovery of “[a]ll Brady (Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83 ) information” in the confidential personnel files of three Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) officers.

2025A Pitchess motion “allow[s] criminal defendants to seek discovery from the court of potentially exculpatory information located in otherwise confidential peace officer personnel records.” (People v. Superior Court (Johnson) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 696, 705 .) 2 as a Hispanic male, wearing a surgical mask, a black hat, a black hoodie with a gray shirt underneath, black-and-white shoes, and what appeared to him to be black jeans.

2025We routinely grant such requests “ ‘to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a defendant’s motion for disclosure of police personnel records.’ ” (People v. Myles (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1181, 1209 .) Here, “[w]e have reviewed the record under seal and independently conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its ruling upon the Pitchess motion.” (People v. Prince (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1179, 1286 .) DISPOSITION We affirm.

2025We routinely grant such requests “ ‘to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a defendant’s motion for disclosure of police personnel records.’ ” (People v. Myles (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1181, 1209 .) Here, “[w]e have reviewed the record under seal and independently conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its ruling upon the Pitchess motion.” (People v. Prince (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1179, 1286 .) DISPOSITION We affirm.

2023(People v. Lewis and Oliver (2006) 39 Cal.4th 970, 992 .) Having examined plaintiff’s Pitchess motion in its entirety, we agree with the trial court.

2023(People v. Lewis and Oliver (2006) 39 Cal.4th 970, 992 .) Here, defendant mailed his Pitchess motion to CDCR, the custodian of records, on March 18, 2022, but noticed a hearing date of February 3, 2022.

2025(See, e.g., People v. Collins (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 137, 151 [trial court’s denial of the defendant’s Pitchess motion was not an abuse of discretion when the defendant failed to show how the officers were involved or allege any facts that provided reason to believe misconduct had occurred]; see also People v. Sanderson (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1334, 1341 .) The record fails to show Johnson suffered prejudice by his attorney’s failure to include an additional factual scenario as to Felix, Joseph, Lozano, Short, and Guitron in his third Pitchess motion.

2024(People v. Sanderson (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1334 , 1339–1340.) The Pitchess motion was taken off calendar and never ruled on, presumably after the evidence booking audit records were provided.

2024If the trial court concludes defendant should have received information by virtue of his Pitchess motion, the proper standard for the trial court to use to determine prejudice is whether there is a reasonable probability the outcome would have been different had the information been disclosed.” (People v. Johnson, supra, 118 Cal.App.4th at p. 305 .) VI.

2022If the trial court concludes defendant should have received information by virtue of his Pitchess motion, the proper standard for the trial court to use to determine prejudice is whether there is a reasonable probability the outcome would have been different had the information been disclosed.” (People v. Johnson, supra, 118 Cal.App.4th at p. 305 .) VII.

2025(People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 ; see also, People v. Nguyen (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1473, 1478 [the proper standard for reviewing a defendant’s posttrial Pitchess motion was whether a reasonable probability existed that disclosure of the requested records would have led to a different result at trial].) Johnson concedes prejudice cannot be shown but requests us to remand the case to the trial court with directions to conduct an in camera hearing.

2023Analysis Defendant filed a Pitchess motion concerning Palmer, seeking discovery of complaints for any false statements or testimony, fabrication of witness testimony, 3 People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 . 5. fabrication of probable cause or reasonable suspicion, acts of moral turpitude, or any other evidence or complaints of dishonesty.