154:
cause" to release the records. Explaining why good cause exists, and why the records are relevant often discloses a defense lawyer's strategy in a criminal case. Thus, courts will allow a defense attorney to file this portion of the motion under seal so that only the judge can review it. The defendant must also prove that the agency that has custody of the records has received notice of the motion.
61:. Echeverria asserted that he acted in self-defense in response to excessive force; immediately following the incident, he was in an intensive care unit, and the officers themselves had sustained no serious injuries. Echeverria requested records of internal investigations into police misconduct, which the trial court granted, but the administrative services bureau refused to cooperate, so a
182:
motions, courts generally refuse to disclose verbatim reports or records from peace officer personnel files. Instead, courts typically order the law enforcement agency to reveal the name, address, and telephone number of any prior complainants and/or witnesses as well as the dates of the incidents in
153:
motion. The defendant must identify which officer or officers whose records are sought and which government agency has custody of the records. The defendant must also describe, via affidavit or declaration, the records and explain why the records are relevant. The defense must prove there is "good
183:
question. The defense can obtain copies of the verbatim reports under certain circumstances. If the defense can show that the witnesses cannot be found, the witnesses cannot recall what they said, or the witnesses refuse to talk with the defense, the defense can obtain copies of the full reports.
148:
motion contains numerous parts. A defendant must identify the case in which the records are being sought, which is easily satisfied by simply referencing the case number. A defendant must attach a full set of the police reports or at least those portions of the police report that relate to the
38:
that the officer used excessive force or lied about the events surrounding the defendant's arrest. The information provided will include prior incidents of use of force, allegations of excessive force, citizen complaints, and information gathered during the officer's pre-employment background
169:
motion, the court is required to order that the records may not be used for any other proceeding. The statutory scheme was developed, in part, because law enforcement departments had developed a practice of purging their files concerning misconduct claims made against their officers.
110:
by García, they had to contain complaints that were sustained by the police department itself before they could be provided. In other words, the police department must have a record of a deputy's propensity for or acts of abuse that were substantiated by the department itself.
136:
The motion can be made by a criminal defendant to discover complaints made against a police officer, and the investigation of those complaints, such that they are contained in the officer's personnel records. The motions can be made in a
141:
under
California Evidence Code 1043-1046. Notwithstanding the broad nature of the discovery that the associated court rule and statute provide, getting records can be problematic.
303:
556:
516:
372:
398:
357:
343:
329:
103:
The petition was unusual, as it came directly from the county sheriff and so the Court of
Appeals readily agreed to hear the petition.
307:
77:
292:
276:
426:
252:
73:
27:
54:
138:
124:
A defendant's right to information about alleged officer misconduct or dishonesty thus providing information for
233:
128:
has since been established by statute in
California in sections 1043 to 1047 of the California Evidence Code.
551:
97:
53:
In March 1972 César
Echeverría and others were charged with felony battery against four deputies of the
114:
García then petitioned the State
Supreme Court to uphold the subpoena, which it did in a 7-0 ruling.
64:
291:
Martindale.com: A Criminal
Defendant's Pitchess Motion Must Be Supported by a Showing of Good Cause:
165:
motion cannot be used in a different case, absent a court order. When a court grants a defendant's
125:
34:
case, to access a law enforcement officer's personnel information when the defendant alleges in an
523:
198:
58:
121:
motion is now one of the 15 or 20 most common motions filed in criminal court in
California.
192:
31:
280:
107:
81:
273:
204:
545:
430:
93:
89:
106:
The Court found, however, that although such records could be classified as
35:
522:. The Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia. Archived from
26:
is a request made by the defense in a
California criminal case, such as a
157:
In
California, there is a carefully prescribed procedure governing
88:, Sheriff Pitchess and his administrative staff are the case's
39:
investigation. The motion's name comes from the case
69:directed the sheriff to produce the information.
254:Oral History Interview with Miguel F. Garcia II
8:
515:Special Litigation Division (January 2012).
274:California State University: Pitchess Motion
320:California Evidence Code sections 1043-1046
62:
16:Legal motion in California criminal cases
246:
244:
242:
223:
221:
219:
215:
452:City of Santa Cruz v. Municipal Court
7:
161:motions. Evidence obtained from one
257:(Interview transcript), Los Angeles
14:
427:"Brady List and Pitchess Motions"
78:Los Angeles County Superior Court
415:, (2003) 29 Cal. 4th 1033, 1042.
92:, and the Superior Court is the
96:, with César Echeverría as the
466:(2004) 117 Cal.4th 1107, 1112.
374:Cal. Code of Civil Procedure §
306:. §§ 1043-1046. Archived from
1:
557:U.S. state criminal procedure
502:(2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1107.
517:"Brady v. Maryland Outline"
573:
488:Pitchers v. Superior Court
229:Pitchess v. Superior Court
86:Pitchess v. Superior Court
72:Sheriff Pitchess sought a
55:Los Angeles County Sheriff
48:Pitchess v. Superior Court
41:Pitchess v. Superior Court
509:General and cited sources
500:Alvarez v. Superior Court
478:(1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 862.
464:Alvarez v. Superior Court
139:California Superior Court
454:(1989) 49 Cal.3d 74, 84.
413:Alford v. Superior Court
387:Alford v. Superior Court
389:(2003) 29 Cal.4th 1044.
98:real party in interest
63:
279:May 28, 2010, at the
234:11 Cal.3d 531
529:on December 22, 2014
402: 1043 subd. (e)
400:Cal. Evidence Code §
371:In conformance with
361: 1043 subd. (b)
359:Cal. Evidence Code §
345:Cal. Evidence Code §
333: 1043 subd. (b)
331:Cal. Evidence Code §
65:subpoena duces tecum
490:(1974) 11 C.3d 531.
425:Steering, Jerry L.
126:witness impeachment
178:When courts grant
82:quash its subpoena
251:Vásquez, Carlos,
199:Brady v. Maryland
59:Peter J. Pitchess
564:
538:
536:
534:
528:
521:
503:
497:
491:
485:
479:
473:
467:
461:
455:
449:
443:
442:
440:
438:
433:on April 9, 2014
429:. Archived from
422:
416:
410:
404:
401:
396:
390:
384:
378:
375:
369:
363:
360:
355:
349:
346:
341:
335:
332:
327:
321:
318:
312:
311:
300:
294:
289:
283:
271:
265:
264:
263:
262:
248:
237:
231:
225:
193:Brady disclosure
68:
32:resisting arrest
572:
571:
567:
566:
565:
563:
562:
561:
542:
541:
532:
530:
526:
519:
514:
511:
506:
498:
494:
486:
482:
476:People v. Matos
474:
470:
462:
458:
450:
446:
436:
434:
424:
423:
419:
411:
407:
399:
397:
393:
385:
381:
373:
370:
366:
358:
356:
352:
344:
342:
338:
330:
328:
324:
319:
315:
304:Cal. Evid. Code
302:
301:
297:
290:
286:
281:Wayback Machine
272:
268:
260:
258:
250:
249:
240:
227:
226:
217:
213:
189:
176:
134:
74:writ of mandate
51:
17:
12:
11:
5:
570:
568:
560:
559:
554:
552:California law
544:
543:
540:
539:
510:
507:
505:
504:
492:
480:
468:
456:
444:
417:
405:
391:
379:
364:
350:
336:
322:
313:
310:on 2014-04-08.
295:
284:
266:
238:
214:
212:
209:
208:
207:
205:Police perjury
202:
195:
188:
185:
175:
172:
133:
130:
76:to compel the
50:
45:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
569:
558:
555:
553:
550:
549:
547:
525:
518:
513:
512:
508:
501:
496:
493:
489:
484:
481:
477:
472:
469:
465:
460:
457:
453:
448:
445:
432:
428:
421:
418:
414:
409:
406:
403:
395:
392:
388:
383:
380:
377:
368:
365:
362:
354:
351:
348:
340:
337:
334:
326:
323:
317:
314:
309:
305:
299:
296:
293:
288:
285:
282:
278:
275:
270:
267:
256:
255:
247:
245:
243:
239:
235:
230:
224:
222:
220:
216:
210:
206:
203:
201:
200:
196:
194:
191:
190:
186:
184:
181:
173:
171:
168:
164:
160:
155:
152:
147:
142:
140:
131:
129:
127:
122:
120:
115:
112:
109:
104:
101:
99:
95:
91:
87:
83:
79:
75:
70:
67:
66:
60:
56:
49:
46:
44:
42:
37:
33:
29:
25:
23:
531:. Retrieved
524:the original
499:
495:
487:
483:
475:
471:
463:
459:
451:
447:
435:. Retrieved
431:the original
420:
412:
408:
394:
386:
382:
376: 2015.5
367:
353:
339:
325:
316:
308:the original
298:
287:
269:
259:, retrieved
253:
236: (1974).
228:
197:
179:
177:
166:
162:
158:
156:
150:
145:
143:
135:
123:
118:
116:
113:
108:discoverable
105:
102:
85:
71:
52:
47:
40:
21:
20:
18:
90:petitioners
546:Categories
347: 1043
261:2013-02-05
174:Disclosure
94:respondent
84:. Thus in
30:case or a
211:Citations
132:Procedure
36:affidavit
533:April 8,
437:April 7,
277:Archived
187:See also
180:Pitchess
167:Pitchess
163:Pitchess
159:Pitchess
151:Pitchess
146:Pitchess
119:Pitchess
22:Pitchess
232:,
24:motion
527:(PDF)
520:(PDF)
535:2014
439:2014
117:The
80:to
28:DUI
548::
241:^
218:^
144:A
100:.
57:,
43:.
19:A
537:.
441:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.