Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver

California's premier full-service law firm with an emphasis on the representation of peace officers in disciplinary, criminal, labor, workers' compensation, personal injury and other civil matters.

  • About Us
  • Practice Areas
    • Labor Representation
    • Civil Litigation
    • Personal Injury
      • Example of Case Results
    • Workers’ Compensation
    • Maritime Law
    • Estate Planning
    • DOE Security Clearance Hearings
    • Peace Officers
    • Firefighters
    • EMS Agency Investigations
    • Criminal Defense
    • CalPERS Appeals
  • Our Team
  • Classes
  • Media
    • Bulletins
    • RLS in the News
  • Resources
    • Links
    • Resources
    • Newsletters
  • Clients
  • Career Opportunities
  • Contact Us
  • Disclaimer

Court of Appeal Issues New Decision Concerning Brady Discovery Precluding Law Enforcement Agencies from Transmitting “Brady Lists” to Prosecutors

July 17, 2017 by Hien Nguyen

by: Michael Rains

The California Court of Appeal for the 2nd Appellate District, in a case titled Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v. Superior Court, issued a published decision on July 11, 2017 that has the potential for changing Brady discovery protocols which have been adopted by many counties in the State.  A summary of this case, how it relates to the California Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in the Johnson case, which also concerned Brady discovery, as well as its practical ramifications are described in greater detail below.

Before discussing this most recent ALADS case, let me revisit the decision in People v. Superior Court (Johnson) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 696.  That case originated in San Francisco and the primary issue before the Court was whether the prosecution’s Brady obligations required a prosecutor to personally review the personnel file of a peace officer who was going to testify as a material witness in a criminal case, or whether a prosecutor’s access to an officer’s personnel file for purposes of Brady discovery was barred by the provisions of Penal Code § 832.7.  Ultimately, the California Supreme Court said that Penal Code § 832.7 does not afford a prosecutor direct access to the personnel file of a peace officer for purposes of satisfying its Brady obligation.

However, the Supreme Court described as “laudable” a negotiated Brady discovery procedure between the San Francisco Police Officers Association and the San Francisco Police Department that permitted the Police Department to provide the DA with names of officers who had been determined by Department management to be on the DA’s “Brady list.”  Under that procedure, if an officer on the Brady list was to be called as a material witness in a criminal case, the DA could satisfy its Brady obligation either by filing a “Pitchess/Brady Motion” under Evidence Code § 1043 et seq., which would trigger an in-camera review of the officer’s file by a judge, or simply alert the defense that the officer may have “Brady discovery” in his/her file and allow the defense to file such a motion.

In the Johnson case, the “laudable” process which resulted in the creation of a “Brady list” by the SFPD as well as its subsequent transmittal to the DA’s office was not challenged on appeal, and was similar to protocols for Brady discovery in many other counties.

As background to the most recent ALADS case, the Los Angeles County Sheriff had convened a Commander’s panel to review individual personnel files of approximately 9,000 sworn employees.  Based upon the review, the panel had identified roughly 300 individuals who had “sustained” allegations in their personnel files which might constitute “Brady discovery.”  The Sheriff proposed to send this “Brady list” of deputies, identified by name and serial number, to the local DA and to any other prosecutorial agencies that handle cases investigated by the LASD.  No documents from any of the deputies’ personnel files would be provided to the prosecutors. If deputies on the list were to testify as a material witness in a criminal case, the DA could either file a “Pitchess/Brady Motion,” or alert the defense to do so.

In November 2016, ALADS filed an action challenging this procedure and asking that the court issue a temporary restraining order precluding the Sheriff’s Department from disclosing the Brady list or the identity of any individual deputy on the list to the DA or any other prosecutorial agency without first obtaining a court order after filing a Pitchess Motion.  ALADS also sought to preclude the Sheriff’s Department from transferring deputies or restricting their duties if they were placed on the Brady list.

The Superior Court judge who was assigned to the case held that the Department’s submission of a “Brady list” of its deputies to the DA and other prosecutorial agencies violated the Penal Code sections protecting confidentiality of law enforcement personnel files (Penal Code §§ 832.7 and 832.8) and violated Pitchess procedures described in Evidence Code §§ 1043 and 1045.  However, the Superior Court judge said that after a DA had filed a criminal complaint against a particular defendant and a deputy whose name appeared on the Department’s “Brady list” was listed as a potential witness in the case, the Sheriff’s office could provide the name of that deputy to the prosecutor so that an appropriate “Pitchess/Brady” motion could be filed either by the DA or by the defense (or both).  In making this latter holding, the Superior Court judge concluded that when a deputy is going to testify as a witness in a criminal matter, Brady creates a federal constitutional disclosure obligation that trumps the state-created confidentiality restrictions of the Pitchess statutes.  Still, the Superior Court judge denied ALADS request that the Sheriff’s Department be precluded from reassigning a deputy or removing him/her from collateral duties (so long as there was no reduction in salary or rank), if the reassignment/removal was a result of a deputy’s perceived inability to perform that particular assignment due to his/her presence on the Department’s “Brady list.”

The Court of Appeal Decision

The Court of Appeal, relying heavily upon an earlier California Supreme Court decision titled Copley Press, Inc. v. Superior Court (2006) 39 Cal.4th 1272, held that Penal Code § 832.7 protects the identity of police officers when the disclosure of their identity would connect the officers to administrative disciplinary proceedings or complaints of misconduct.  The Court found that placing an officer on a “Brady list” has the effect of connecting that officer to sustained administrative disciplinary proceedings or sustained complaints of misconduct which the DA is not entitled to know about unless it is the result of the filing of a Pitchess motion.  In other words, while the law enforcement employer may inspect the files of its employees and compile a “Brady list” internally, it may not communicate that list to the DA or any prosecutorial agency, nor can it even communicate the name of a deputy on the Brady list who has received a subpoena to testify in a criminal case, unless a Pitchess motion is filed, heard, and a judge orders the disclosure.  The ruling that the Department could not even supply the name of a deputy on the “Brady list” to the DA once the deputy received a subpoena to testify unless ordered to do so by a judge at a Pitchess Motion was contrary to the ruling by the Superior Court judge.

The Court of Appeal also emphasized that the issue it was called upon to decide had not been considered by the Supreme Court in Johnson:

“Whatever the reason, Johnson simply does not address the central issue of our case: the statutory legality of a law enforcement agency disclosing to an outside prosecutorial agency, absent a filed, heard, and court-granted Pitchess Motion, the fact that a peace officer has founded allegations of misconduct in his or her personnel file and, to the extent such disclosure is illegal under state law, whether it is nevertheless constitutionally compelled by Brady and constitutional due process.”

The Court of Appeal stated that the fact that the Supreme Court had described the process in place in San Francisco for the streamlining of Pitchess and Brady discovery to be “laudable” did not amount to “formal legal approval” of that procedure.

The Court of Appeal also held that a formal opinion issued by the California Attorney General which found that a procedure used by the CHP similar to that agreed upon between the SFPOA, SFPD and San Francisco District Attorney’s office was lawful and appropriate was “advisory only, and not binding on the courts.”  In conclusion, the Court of Appeal stated that “…neither Johnson, nor the (Attorney General) Opinion, therefore, persuades us that our earlier analysis and conclusion prohibiting disclosure of deputy identities from the Brady list, absent a properly filed and granted Pitchess Motion and corresponding court order, are incorrect.”

Finally, the Court of Appeal upheld the right of the Sheriff’s Department to transfer or restrict the duties of deputies whose names were placed on the “Brady list,” provided they were not reduced in rank or suffered a reduction in salary.

Dissenting/Concurring Opinion

Justice Grimes filed a concurring and dissenting opinion expressing concern about “…the unworkability of requiring a prosecutor to make a Pitchess Motion merely to find out whether or not a deputy in a pending prosecution has potential Brady material in his personnel file.”  She pointed out that the “real effect” of the majority’s holding would be to either (1) prevent entirely any disclosure of the identity of a Brady list officer by the Department to the prosecutor, or (2) to require the prosecutor to make Pitchess Motion for every officer involved in a pending criminal case or (3) to require the prosecutor to risk the consequences of a possible failure to disclose exculpatory Brady material in an officer’s file to the defendant.  She emphasized that law enforcement agencies throughout the state have been identifying officers with Brady material in their personnel files to prosecutors for many years and that this decision ran contrary to that established and widespread practice which the Supreme Court in Johnson had found “laudable.”

Practical Consequences of This Decision

There is no question that this decision condemns, legally speaking, the practice of a law enforcement agency transmitting names of officers who appear on a “Brady list” to the prosecution pursuant to either a negotiated agreement or longstanding practice.  The decision also clearly indicates that an agency should not even communicate to the District Attorney prosecuting a criminal case that a particular sworn employee is on the Department’s “Brady list” unless and until a Pitchess Motion occurs and the judge issues an order disclosing the name of that officer and any relevant documents to the prosecution.

It may well be that the LA County Sheriff’s Department, probably with the enthusiastic endorsement of the California District Attorneys Association, will ask the California Supreme Court to review this decision and reconcile it with that Court’s decision in Johnson.  Until that occurs, it appears to us that there will necessarily be a flurry of Pitchess Motions filed by frustrated prosecutors and unhappy judges hearing countless Pitchess proceedings, and perhaps numerous demands by law enforcement employee associations throughout the state that the local prosecutor destroy or immediately return to the agency the “Brady list” which may have been transmitted to the prosecutor in the first place out of the agency’s belief that such a procedure was lawful, and even “laudable.”

Mike Rains is a principal and founding member of Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver, PC.  He heads the firm’s Criminal Defense and Legal Defense of Peace Officers Practice Groups. Mike is one of California’s top trial attorneys. He has over 30 years of experience representing peace officers and other high-profile clients in civil and criminal litigation.

Disclaimer: Case law and analysis can change over time. The information in this article is accurate as of the date the article was written and should not constitute legal advice. Always consult with an attorney.

Filed Under: Bulletins Tagged With: michael-l-rains

Consultation Form

Offices across California to serve you.
Contact us now to schedule a consultation.
Contact form not loading? Click here!
Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver, PC publishes this website as a service to our clients and other friends for informational purposes only. It is not intended to be used as a substitute for specific legal advice or opinions, and the transmission of information through this website is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship between sender and receiver. Internet subscribers and online readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

© 2023 Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver, PC. All Rights Reserved. | Disclaimer

We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.
Do not sell my personal information.
Cookie settingsACCEPTREJECT
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Non-necessary
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
SAVE & ACCEPT
  • Contact Us

  • News Alerts

Official logo for Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver
Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver Logo
  • About Us
  • Practice Areas
    ▼
    • Labor Representation
    • Civil Litigation
    • Personal Injury
      ▼
      • Example of Case Results
    • Workers’ Compensation
    • Maritime Law
    • Estate Planning
    • DOE Security Clearance Hearings
    • Peace Officers
    • Firefighters
    • EMS Agency Investigations
    • Criminal Defense
    • CalPERS Appeals
  • Our Team
  • Classes
  • Media
    ▼
    • Bulletins
    • RLS in the News
  • Resources
    ▼
    • Links
    • Resources
    • Newsletters
  • Clients
  • Career Opportunities
  • Contact Us
  • Disclaimer
Hotline phone numbers. Northern California: 925-609-1699. Southern California: 310-393-1486.