6 Citing briefs
RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT v. STIGLITZ
Intervener, Riverside Sheriff’s Association, Answer to Petition for Review
Filed November 14, 2012
(People v. Woodhead (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1002, 1010 [239 Cal. Rptr. 656, 741 P.2d 154].) We see nojustification for interpreting Evidence Code section 1043 in such a way as to render the phrase “‘or administrative body” meaningless. Riverside County Sheriffs' Dept. v. Stiglitz, supra, 209 Cal. App. 4th at 904.
LONG BEACH POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION v. CITY OF LONG BEACH(LOS ANGELES TIMES COMMUNICATIONS) (To be called and continued to the March 2014 calendar.)
Real Party in Interest and Respondent, Los Angeles Times Communications LLC, Answer Brief on the Merits
Filed July 10, 2012
See C.T. 000080-000110; RJN, Ex. A at RJN0035-0108. The Legislature responded in 1978 by enacting S.B. 1436, codified at Penal Code §§ 832.5, 832.7, and Evidence Code §§ 1043-1045. There were two specific purposes behind these statutes: to stop the practice by public agencies of destroying peace officer personnel records, and to provide a procedural mechanism for criminal defendants andcivillitigants to obtain information about prior conduct by peace officers, while 36 DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 865 S. FIGUEROAST,SUITE 2400 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566 DWT 19667840v4 0026175-000385 (213) 633-6800 Fax: (213) 633-6899 protecting officers against broad-basedfishing expeditionsinto their personnelfiles.
PEOPLE v. CORDOVA (JOSEPH SEFERINO)
Appellant’s Opening Brief
Filed May 17, 2013
(See Welf. & Inst.Code, §§ 827, 828; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1423(a), (b).) In addition, the inspection of personnelrecordsofpoliceofficers is also limited under both statute and case law. (California Evidence Code section 1043; Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531.) There was nothing in the discovery of the information requested that | would have “unduly hamper(ed) the prosecution or violate(d) some other legitimate governmentalinterest.”
LONG BEACH POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION v. CITY OF LONG BEACH(LOS ANGELES TIMES COMMUNICATIONS) (To be called and continued to the March 2014 calendar.)
Appellant, City of Long Beach, Opening Brief on the Merits
Filed May 17, 2012
State law governing the release of the namesofpoliceofficers, linkedto a critical incident, such as an officer involved shooting,is currently unclear. The decision to withhold or release a police officer’s nameis governedbythe interplay of twosets of statutes; the California Public Records Act (hereinafter “CPRA”), California Government Code sections 6250-6270 and the “Pitchess” statutes found at California Penal Code sections 832.5, 832.7, 832.8 and California Evidence Code sections 1043-1047. Decisionsatthetrial court level regarding the disclosure of police officers’ namesafter they have been involvedin critical incident are inconsistent.
ROSE v. BANK OF AMERICA (Mauro, J., assigned justice pro tempore; Chin, J., not participating)
Appellants’ Petition for Review
Filed December 30, 2011
See Rose, 200 Cal.App.4" at 1452. In City of Santa Cruz, this Court reviewed the procedurefor a criminal defendantto obtain discovery under Cal. Evid. Code § 1043. This Court looked at the history leading to passage ofthatstatute, not attempts after its passage to amendit.
PEOPLE v. WOODRUFF
Appellant’s Opening Brief
Filed August 30, 2011
The judge also inquired about Blankenship’s failure to request '0 (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 [113 CalRptr. 897, 522 P.2d 305], subsequently codified in California Evidence Code sections 1043-1047. People v. Woodruff, 3115378 36 Appellant’s Opening Brief investigative funds, whichthetrial judge said “would be not only ineffective assistance of counsel but downright criminal.”