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

Information the Department Required to Provide Prior to an Interrogation

May 1, 2018 by Hien Nguyen

From: May 2018 ALADS Dispatcher

An interrogation is simply a question and answer session.  It need not be “formal” nor does it have to occur through IAB.  It occurs whenever someone is questioned.  In the context of internal affairs investigations, an interrogation is governed by the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights (POBRA) in Government Code section 3303 if the deputy is under investigation and being interrogated which “could” lead to punitive action except when the interrogation occurs “in the normal course of duty, counseling, instruction, or informal verbal admonishment by, or other routine or unplanned contact with” the deputy or if the investigation is “concerned solely and directly with alleged criminal activities.”

If the interrogation is covered by POBRA then Government Code section 3303(c) provides that the public safety officer under administrative investigation “shall be informed of the nature of the investigation prior to any interrogation.”  The California Supreme Court in the 1990 case of Pasadena Police Officers Association v. City of Pasadena, 51 Cal.3d 564, determined that the officer was not entitled to pre-interrogation discovery although the Department is free to provide it.  That Court’s rationale was that “[d]isclosure before interrogation might color the recollection of the person to be questioned or lead that person to conform his or her version of an event to that given by witnesses already questioned” and it might deprive investigators from using information learned during the investigation to “aid in eliciting truthful statements from the person they are questioning.”

Despite the holding in Pasadena, questions remained regarding how much information must be provided to the deputy to constitute the “nature of the investigation” and when the deputy must be told the nature of the investigation.  The Court in Ellins v. City of Sierra Madre (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 445, provided some guidance to both of those questions.  In Ellins, the Court adopted the “reasonableness” standard and concluded that “reasonable advance notice” is required.  As such, it depends upon the specific circumstances of the individual case.  Ellins also made a distinction between disclosure of pre-interrogation discovery and disclosure of the nature of the allegations, to wit:

Although [the Court in Pasadena concluded that] the disclosure of discovery regarding misconduct in advance of an interrogation might ‘frustrate the effectiveness of any investigation’ by ‘color(ing) the recollection of the person to be questioned or lead(ing) that person to confirm his or her version of an event to that given by witnesses’ whose statements have been disclosed in discovery advanced disclosure of the nature of the investigation has the opposite effect: It allows the officer and his or her representative to be ‘well-positioned to aid in a full and cogent presentation of the (officer’s) view of the matter, bringing to light justifications, explanations, extenuating circumstances, and other mitigating factors’ and removes the incentive for ‘uninformed representative(s) to obstruct the interrogation ‘as a precautionary means of protecting employees from unknown possibilities.’ Thus, advance disclosure of the nature of the investigation serves both purposes of POBRA by contributing to the efficiency and thoroughness of the investigation while also safeguarding the officer’s personal interest in fair treatment.

Thus, according to Ellins, within a reasonable time before the interrogation (depending on the specific circumstances) the Department must disclose the nature of the investigation in sufficient means to allow the deputy and the representative to be “well-positioned to aid in a full and cogent presentation of the [deputy’s] view of the matter, bringing to light justifications, explanations, extenuating circumstances, and other mitigating factors.”

Yet, another issue arose about how much information was required to be provided to a deputy after the initial interrogation and prior to any subsequent interrogation in the same case.  In that regard, Government Code section 3303(g) states, in pertinent part, that:

If a tape recording is made of the interrogation, the public safety officer shall have access to the tape if any further proceedings are contemplated or prior to any further interrogation at a subsequent time.  The public safety officer shall be entitled to a transcribed copy of any notes made by a stenographer or to any reports or complaints made by investigators or other persons, except those which are deemed by the investigating agency to be confidential.

The holding in Pasadena only addressed the initial interrogation but it did mention that the way Government Code section 3303(g) was written “[i]t follows, therefore, that access to them [those materials] would be after the interrogation.”  For years, agencies including the Sheriff’s Department, opined that nothing needed to be provided to a deputy after the initial administrative investigation and prior to a subsequent administrative interrogation other than the prior audio recording of that deputy and the transcript of it, if one was made.  The remaining documents mentioned in Government Code section 3303(g) – “a transcribed copy of any notes made by a stenographer or to any reports or complaints made by investigators or other persons” – were seen as pre-disciplinary documents and were only being produced with the notice of intent to discipline.

Then, in 2017, the Court in Santa Ana Police Officers Association v. City of Santa Ana, 13 Cal.App.5th 317, provided a specific answer.  It held that the Legislature’s placement of the provision regarding disclosure of the recording of the prior interrogation and the reports and complaints indicated that the Legislature must have intended the rights “to be coextensive.”  The Court then held that “[b]ecause discovery rights to reports and complaints are coextensive with discovery rights to tape recordings of interrogations, and tapes recordings must be produced ‘prior to any further interrogation,’ then it follows that reports and complaints also must be produced ‘prior to any further interrogation.’”

As a result, the take away from these cases is that the deputy is entitled to reasonable advance disclosure of the nature of the investigation prior to the first administrative interrogation with sufficient information to allow the deputy to be “well-positioned to aid in a full and cogent presentation of the (deputy’s) view of the matter” and that the deputy is entitled to the prior recording and transcript along with “any reports or complaints made by investigators or other persons, except those which are deemed by the investigating agency to be confidential” prior to any subsequent interrogation.  In the author’s experience, however, the Department will need to be reminded of the holding in Santa Ana and strongly prodded to provide the required information before a subsequent interrogation.

About the Author
Ken Yuwiler is a partner at Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver, PC. Ken practices labor and employment law primarily representing public safety employees in civil and administrative proceedings, assisting his clients during internal affairs investigations, critical incidents, disciplinary proceedings, and grievances, including writs and appeals. He also defends associations and public safety employees in civil cases; prosecuted civil cases brought on behalf of aggrieved employees; and has prosecuted and defended writs and appeals.

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: Ken Yuwiler

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.