In March 2021, Manuel Banuelos was charged with first degree murder. In August 2023, during the investigation, a prosecutor notified Banuelos’s Defense Counsel (Defense Counsel) that the Azusa Police Department (Department): 1) sustained a finding of dishonesty against Officer Jonathan Rush (Sustained Finding) earlier that year; and 2) the Department intended to publish the records related to the Sustained Finding pursuant to Penal Code section 832.7(b)(1)(C). This law makes peace officer records non-confidential if they are related to a sustained finding that an officer’s misconduct related to: false statements; filing false reports; destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence; or perjury.
Defense Counsel requested the Sustained Finding, among other records, under the California Public Records Act (CPRA). While this request was pending, Defense Counsel filed a Pitchess motion seeking additional Brady material. The Department requested that, if the court ordered that the Sustained Finding (or any other records were) were discoverable, the court also issue a protective order limiting their dissemination. Defense Counsel opposed, arguing that the Sustained Finding was non-confidential. After an in-camera review, the court found no additional Brady material and ordered the release of the Sustained Finding, but issued a protective order limiting its dissemination outside the defense team.
Banuelos sought an extraordinary writ of mandate to vacate this protective order, arguing that the records were non-confidential and subject to public inspection under section 832.7(b)(1)(C). The Court of Appeal initially denied the petition. Banuelos petitioned the California Supreme Court for review, which transferred the matter back to the Court of Appeal, directing the appellate court to reconsider.
On the second review, the Court of Appeal concluded that the records of the officer’s sustained finding of dishonesty were non-confidential and subject to public inspection under section 832.7(b)(1)(C). The Court of Appeal explained that in certain circumstances, Pitchess requires disclosure of confidential law enforcement personnel records, and also typically requires the court to issue a protective order providing that such disclosures are not used for any other purpose. However, effective January 1, 2019, Senate Bill No. 1421 (SB 1421) amended sections 832.7 and 832.8 to render certain types of law enforcement personnel records non-confidential and subject to public disclosure under the CPRA, including the types of records sought in the Sustained Finding.
The Court of Appeal found that the trial court should not have issued the protective order, as the only records to be disclosed were those related to the Sustained Finding. As these records are non-confidential under the Penal Code, they are not entitled to a protective order under Pitchess. Consequently, the Court of Appeal granted the petition for writ of mandate and directed the trial court to vacate its protective order concerning the Sustained Finding.
Banuelos v. Superior Court, 2024 Cal.App. LEXIS 705.