Policy Text
POLICE
OFFICER
FOLICE
OFFICER
VVENTURA POLIC
NARD POLICE
1234
TOR
OFFICE
OFFICERA
GREGORY D. TOTTEN
District Attorney
SHERIFF BILL AYUB
Ventura County Sheriff
INTERIM CHIEF KEN CORNEY
Ventura Police Department
CHIEF SCOTT WHITNEY
Oxnard Police Department
VENTURA COUNTY
LAW ENFORCEMENT
COORDINATING COMMITTEE
SHERIFF WILLIAM AYUB
Ventura County Sherriff's Office
Chair
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY
COUNTY OF VENTURA
CHIEF ANDREW SALINAS
Port Hueneme Police Department
CHIEF DAVID LIVINGSTONE
Simi Valley Police Department
CHIEF MATT RODRIGUEZ
Santa Paula Police Department
CAPTAIN AARON GOULDING
California Highway Patrol
PITCHESS/BRADY PROCEDURE FOR DISCLOSURE OF
MATERIAL FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL RECORDS
(EXTERNAL POLICY)
January 31, 2020
The following is a revised "external" policy that addresses confidential information contained in
peace officer personnel files. This revised external policy reflects changes to California law,
particularly 2018 Senate Bill 1421's designation of certain peace officer personnel records as
non-confidential. Litigation is pending in California to determine whether the non-confidential
designation applies to conduct occurring before January 1, 2019. One Ventura County Superior
Court judge ruled it does not apply to conduct occurring before January 1, 2019. This policy
assumes the non-confidential designation applies only to conduct occurring on or after January 1,
2019, unless case law or the employing agency establishes otherwise. Non-confidential
information contained in peace officer personnel files is addressed separately in an adopted
policy known as the "Internal Policy."
1
I.
PURPOSE
Confidential law enforcement personnel records are protected from disclosure by the statutory
procedure for Pitchess motions. (Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531; Evidence
Code sections 1043-1047; Penal Code section 832.7.) Additional important protections regarding
personnel records are contained in the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act
(Government Code section 3300 et seq.) and in the right to privacy under the California
Constitution (Article I, section 1). Effective January 1, 2019, changes to Penal Code section
832.7 subject certain law enforcement personnel records to disclosure under the California
Public Records Act (PRA). In particular, the changes allow the defense to obtain certain non-
confidential peace officer personnel records directly from the law enforcement agency. Such
non-confidential records relate to (1) officer involved shootings, (2) use of force resulting in
death or great bodily injury, and (3) sustained findings of sexual assault involving a member of
the public, or of dishonesty involving the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime or
the reporting or investigation of misconduct by another peace officer.
The District Attorney has a constitutional obligation under Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S.
83, to provide criminal defendants with exculpatory evidence, including substantial evidence
bearing on the credibility of prosecution witnesses. In several respects under current law, the
scope of the prosecution's obligations under Brady exceeds the information available to the
defense under Pitchess. (City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (Brandon) (2002) 29 Cal.4th 1,
12, 14.)
The prosecution's duty of disclosure extends to evidence in possession of the "prosecution
team,"
," which includes the investigating law enforcement agency. (People v. Superior Court
(Barrett) (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1305; Brandon, supra, at p. 8; see Brandon at p. 12, fn. 2.) In
2
addition, there is federal court authority that police have a due process obligation to disclose
exculpatory evidence to the prosecution. (Jean v. Collins (4th Cir. 2000) 221 F.3d 656;
Newsome v. McCabe (7th Cir. 2001) 256 F.3d 747, 752.) The California Supreme Court also
noted in 2019 that the duty of disclosure is borne not only by the prosecutor's office, but also
by the law enforcement agency and individual peace officers. (Association for Los Angeles
Deputy Sheriffs v. Superior Court (2019) No. S243855, 2019 WL 4009133, 11-12, citing
Carrillo v. County of Los Angeles (9th Cir. 2015) 798 F.3d 1210, 1219-1223 & fn. 12.)
The District Attorney and Ventura County law enforcement agencies are committed to full
compliance with the rights of criminal defendants to a fair trial and due process of law. We
recognize that effective enforcement and prosecution of crime are jeopardized by failure to
comply with discovery law and that such violations may result in the reversal of convictions,
sometimes years after the trial is concluded. More importantly, we recognize that the honesty of
law enforcement employees is a cornerstone of our criminal justice system. On those rare
occasions when a law enforcement employee has engaged in conduct that has a negative bearing
upon his or her credibility, we are obligated to disclose this information as required by law.
Because of the small number of officers