A man charged with murder filed a Pitchess motion to get Brady information from the confidential personnel files of six Los Angeles County Sheriff’s deputies. Brady refers to a 1963 USSC case that found that a criminal defendant’s right to due process requires a prosecutor to disclose evidence or information that would prove the innocence of the defendant, or would enable the defense to more effectively impeach the credibility of government witnesses.
In this case, the trial court found the man’s Pitchess motion established good cause for the court to review the peace officer records. The trial court determined the personnel files of four of the six deputies contained Brady material. The Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (LASD) contended that the initial disclosure in Pitchess is limited to the name and the contact information of the reporting parties and witnesses. The trial court agreed with LASD, and denied the man’s request for the Brady material itself. Instead, the trial court ordered disclosure of the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of the individuals who had witnessed or complained of the conduct of the officers that was at issue in the man’s case.
The man then filed a Brady motion seeking Brady discovery. In the Brady motion, the man argued he was entitled to the actual Brady evidence, as opposed to a single document listing the name and contact information of each complainant as is commonly provided in response to a Pitchess motion. (Penal Code sections 832.7 and 832.8; and Evidence Code sections 1043 through 1045.)
The trial court still refused to give the man the actual Brady information. The trial court found that the case authorities did not specify the scope of the information to be turned over once a court determines that Brady material is present in an officer’s file. The trial court concluded that it should not turn over any more than what is required by Pitchess — the names and contact information for complainants and witnesses. The man then filed a petition for writ of mandate in the California Court of Appeal to order the trial court to provide the Brady material.
The California Court of Appeal found that the trial court should have ordered the LASD to disclose all Brady material in the four deputies’ personnel files, including documents and any audio-video materials.
This case is a primer on the discovery of confidential peace officer records. Although the Court found that a party seeking Brady material must comply with the Pitchess motion procedures, this case defines the substantive differences between a Pitchess motion and a Brady motion, including: 1) what a party must show to justify an in camera review on each type of motion; and 2) what information the court must order disclosed on a successful motion.
First, the Court found that a criminal defendant must show good cause in order to allow a court to review peace officer files. This is a low burden on both motions. On a Pitchess motion, the defendant must show: that the information is material to the pending criminal case; and that the defendant has a reasonable belief that the agency has the type of information sought. Pitchess motions generally seek information about past complaints by third parties of excessive force, violence, dishonesty, or the filing of false police reports.
The criminal defendant’s burden on a Brady motion is even lower. All a defendant must do is describe the Brady-tip or Brady bank alert that it received, together with some explanation of how the officer’s credibility might be relevant to the proceeding. No allegations of officer misconduct in the defendant’s case are required.
Second, once good cause has been shown, the scope of the disclosures for a classic Pitchess motion versus a Brady motion is also different. On a Pitchess motion, material that is potentially relevant includes records that touch on the type of misconduct that the defendant has alleged the officer committed in dealing with the defendant. This would include complaints that the police agency has deemed unfounded. Given this low bar and the potential to sweep in materials with only minimal relevance, limiting initial disclosures to names and contact information for complainants and witnesses makes sense in a classic Pitchess context. Conversely, when a court determines that an officer’s personnel file contains Brady information, by definition, the relevance of the material is not “minimal.” Rather, the court has concluded that the information has the potential to affect the outcome of the trial. The limitations on disclosure in the Pitchess statute (Evidence Code section 1045(b) & (c)) do not apply to Brady information. Therefore, the practice of refusing to disclose the actual records is not applicable for Brady material.
Schneider v. Superior Court (Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department), 2025 Cal.App. LEXIS 342.