Legal Defense Fund - Case Decisions

* James Reimann was arrested for drunk driving and causing great bodily injury.

* Reimann’s attorney asked the Orange County D.A. to run criminal records checks on the arresting Garden Grove police officers. The D.A. declined to do so; Reimann filed a motion against the D.A. to the same effect; the superior court granted Reimann’s motion. Reimann in his motion did not follow the Pitchess procedure.

* The court also ordered the police department to disclose the officers’ birth dates to the D.A. The court ruled that the Pitchess procedure did not apply to a Brady request.

* The police department filed a petition for writ of mandate with the appellate court to have the trial court’s order vacated.

* The appellate court agreed with the department and issued a peremptory writ.

Garden Grove Analysis

* The court noted that the Pitchess procedure was codified in 1978 in Evidence Code sections 1043 and 1045 and Penal Code sections 832.7 and 832.8

* Penal Code section 832.7(a) requires that the Evidence Code procedure be followed before information is disclosed from a peace officer’s personnel file.

* The Evidence Code procedure permits discovery of not only excessive force events but also impeachment material. Reimann had been seeking impeachment material.

* The Pitchess procedure in the Evidence Code related only to peace officer personnel records.

* Penal Code section 832.8 defines personnel records broadly to include records relating to “personal data” and to include other information the disclosure of which would be an invasion of privacy.

* The Reimann court concluded that a peace officer’s birth date was “personal data”. The court also concluded that disclosing birth dates could lead to an invasion of privacy.

* “Reimann’s motion circumvented the Pitchess process by requesting the officers’ criminal records from the district attorney and not from the police department. We cannot allow Reimann to make an end run on the Pitchess process by requesting the officers’ personnel records under the guise of a Penal Code section 1054.1 and Brady discovery motion.”