City of Pasadena v. Superior Court
Filed 7/27/06 City of Pasadena v. Superior Court CA2/1
Opinion following rehearing
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
| CITY OF PASADENA etc., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest. | B191403 (L.A.S.C. No. GA64193) OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE |
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING; petition for writ of mandate. Fred Fujioka, Judge. Petition granted.
Michele Beal Bagneris, City Attorney, Frank L. Rhemrev, Assistant City Attorney for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Law Offices of the Alternate Public Defender, Janice Y. Fukai, Alternate Public Defender, Francis Bennett, Deputy Alternate Public Defenders for Real Party in Interest.
___________________________
We determine that a disciplinary matter in a police officer's personnel file is not disclosable as relevant where the disciplinary matter is the officer's failure to report a matter that is of such a personal and private nature that his failure to report it has no bearing on his credibility.
FACTS
According to the police report, undercover Pasadena officers arranged a sham purchase of cocaine from Carl Lewis Smith and two of his cohorts, Phenita Rushton and Gary Daniels. One undercover officer handed a marked 20-dollar bill to Smith in exchange for a piece of rock cocaine. Along with other uniformed officers, Officer David Llanes was waiting nearby and responded to the call from the undercover officers after the purchase. When Officer Llanes arrived, he saw Rushton toss something into the street. Another officer later found the twenty-dollar bill that the undercover officer had handed to Smith to buy the rock cocaine. Officer Llanes drove Rushton and Daniels to the police station and booked them.
Smith was charged with selling rock cocaine. Seeking to attack the veracity of the officers who were involved in his arrest and involved in preparing the official reports, Smith sought disclosure of police personnel files. The motion was granted as to some of the officers.
Seeking to attack Officer Llanes's credibility as a witness, Smith sought disclosure of Officer Llanes's personnel file. After examining Officer Llanes's file in camera, respondent court ordered disclosure of certain documents that were filed in this Court under seal.
DISCUSSION
Custodian of Records contends that the information in Officer Llanes's personnel file has no bearing on whether he would lie about the rock cocaine sale on the witness stand and disclosure of the information in his personnel file constitutes a breach of privacy. Police personnel files are confidential (Pen. Code, § 832.7, subd. (a)) and may be disclosed only on a showing of good cause. (Evid. Code, § 1043, see Warrick v. Superior Court (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1011, 1019 [pre-in camera proceedings].) After the in camera hearing, a trial court abuses its discretion if it orders the disclosure of â€
