Bailey v. Sup. Ct.
After being charged with a misdemeanor count of willfully and unlawfully resisting, delaying and obstructing a peace officer (Pen. Code, 148, subd. (a)(1)), Andrew Bailey filed a Pitchess motion seeking discovery of information in a police officer's personnel file. Bailey claimed that statements in the police report regarding his detention near San Diego State University (SDSU) for Vehicle Code violations by SDSU police officer M. Duncan were false, and accordingly sought information from Duncan's files and records with the SDSU police department about prior complaints of falsifying police reports and other related acts reflecting on Duncan's dishonesty. The trial court denied the motion, finding that Bailey's moving papers failed to present a sufficient "factual scenario" showing good cause to warrant in camera review of Duncan's personnel records.
Bailey filed this petition for writ of mandate challenging the court's ruling after the Appellate Division of the San Diego Superior Court (Appellate Division) summarily denied his petition for writ of mandate in that court. Bailey contends that the general allegations in his counsel's declaration were sufficient to meet the low threshold for establishing good cause for discovery and that the court's denial of in camera review of those records was thus an abuse of discretion. Court requested a response from the real party in interest, the Board of Trustees of California State University (CSU), and subsequently issued an order to show cause (OSC). Court conclude the court abused its discretion in denying Bailey's request for in camera review. Accordingly, Court grant the writ petition.
Comments on Bailey v. Sup. Ct.