2019 New Law Archives - Good Shepherd News - Fastest Growing Religious, Free Speech & Political Content

Assembly Bill 748 Makes Video Evidence Captured by Police Agencies Subject to Disclosure as Public Records

The Truth News — Thu, 20 Feb 2025 11:42:33 +0000

Governor Signs SB 1421 and AB 748, Dramatically Increasing Public Access to Peace Officer Personnel Records

On September 30, 2018, Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. signed two significant pieces of legislation, Senate Bill 1421 and Assembly Bill 748, that will require major changes in how law enforcement agencies respond to requests for peace officer personnel records.

In short, these two statutes will allow members of the public to obtain certain peace officer personnel records that were previously available only through the Pitchess procedure by making a request under the California Public Records Act (“CPRA”) request.

Effective January 1, 2019, SB 1421 amends Government Code Section 832.7 to generally require disclosure of records and information relating to the following types of incidents in response to a request under the CPRA:

Records relating to the report, investigation, or findings of an incident involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer.
Records relating to the report, investigation or findings of an incident in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person results in death or great bodily injury.
Records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public. “Sexual assault” is defined for the purposes of section 832.7 as the commission or attempted initiation of a sexual act with a member of the public by means of force, threat, coercion, extortion, offer of leniency or any other official favor, or under the color of authority. The propositioning for or commission of any sexual act while on duty is considered a sexual assault.
Records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction of evidence or falsifying or concealing of evidence.

AB 748 requires agencies, effective July 1, 2019, to produce video and audio recordings of “critical incidents,” defined as an incident involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer, or an incident in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death or great bodily injury, in response to CPRA requests.

These statutes have different timelines for production of records, and different circumstances under which production of records can be delayed or records can be withheld. Further, agencies may wish to evaluate their document retention policies in light of these new disclosure requirements. Agencies should work closely with trusted legal counsel to ensure compliance with both statutes.

CA Laws Intersect to Create New, More Immediate Disclosure Obligations for Police Recordings

Now, more than ever, Californians have greater access to police personnel records, body and dashboard camera footage and other recordings acquired by police agencies due to companion laws Senate Bill 1821 and Assembly Bill 748. Signed into law in 2018, these laws alter the way law enforcement agencies respond to California Public Records Act requests for records relating to critical incidents.

Agencies have operated under the authority of these laws since January 2019 (SB 1421) and July 2019 (AB 748), but questions remain about permitted delays and redactions, privacy, criminal proceedings and internal investigations. Agencies did receive some disclosure clarity earlier this year when a judge held that, while SB 1421 applies prospectively, it still requires an agency to publicly release pre-2019 police personnel records it maintains in response to CPRA requests to critical incidents.

However, further case law doesn’t yet exist to help responding agencies answer many of the outstanding questions.

Without court opinions to guide an agency’s practices, agencies can look to the legislative intent of the bills to better understand what images and data are subject to redaction, the limited circumstances that warrant a delay in a record’s release and privacy interests often associated with these types of records.

Closed Off and Confidential

Prior to SB 1421 and AB 748, California was one of the most secretive states when it came to the release of video, audio and other records relating to critical incidents. Generally, exempt from public disclosure under the CPRA, they were protected as investigatory files or confidential police officer personnel records.

Then, courts and policies shifted.

Beginning in 2016 with the California Court of Appeal’s ruling in City of Eureka v. Superior Court, the court held that police “dashcam” footage was not protected as a confidential personnel record simply because it might later be used by a police department in connection with a complaint or investigation.

Next came the Los Angeles Police Department’s Critical Incident Video Release Policy, which, revised in 2018, stated that the Department would release to the public video of critical incidents within 45 days of the incident.

At the same time, California lawmakers were grappling with how to mandate similar access statewide. Their debate centered on how to increase transparency while also respecting the privacy rights at issue, and the new LAPD policy provided them a roadmap.

Enter SB 1421 and AB 748.

Critical Incidents Spark Release

Under both laws, the general principles for processing CPRA requests apply equally. As such, the CPRA dictates that an agency must make a determination of whether it has responsive records within 10 calendar days of receiving a request. A rule governing a 14-day extension still applies. Agencies are still expected to produce records within a “reasonable” amount of time, and traditionally, the CPRA allows for a few, specific reasons to delay the production of records. This is where SB 1421 and AB 748 differ.

SB 1421 amended California Penal Code section 832.7 governing police personnel records to strengthen the public’s faith in law enforcement by ensuring its right to access to reports of potential police misconduct, civilians’ rights violation and use or deadly force. source

Law Enforcement Agencies Must Disclose Video and Audio Recordings Even if it is Relating to a “Critical Incident” and Certain Investigation Records Without Pitchess Process Under New Laws

Governor Brown has signed two new laws to require law enforcement agencies to provide, in response to a California Public Records Act request, certain information that was previously exempt from disclosure and, in some instances, was confidential and subject to Pitchess Motion requirements.

AB 748:
Starting on July 1, 2019, video and audio recordings that relate to a “critical incident” are no longer exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act. A “critical incident” is defined as either 1) an incident involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; or 2) an incident in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death or great bodily injury. The timing of the disclosure is subject to the deadlines already in place in the Public Records Act, except the agency may take additional time, as specified in amended Government Code section 6254(f), if the agency demonstrates that disclosure would substantially interfere with an active criminal or administrative investigation. However, there are specific requirements set forth in Government Code section 6254(f)(4)(A) to justify the delay in disclosure.

SB 1421:
Penal Code sections 832.7 and 832.8 state that peace officer personnel files are confidential and cannot be disclosed absent compliance with Evidence Code sections 1043 and 1046 (i.e., a Pitchess Motion). However, effective January 1, 2019, certain peace officer or custodial officer personnel records are no longer confidential and shall be made available for public inspection pursuant to the Public Records Act.

Specifically, records relating to the report, investigation, or findings of 1) an incident involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer; 2) an incident in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer resulted in death or great bodily injury; 3) an incident in which a sustained finding was made regarding sexual assault involving a member of the public; and 4) incidents relating to sustained findings of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer must be made available pursuant to the Public Records Act.

The amended Penal Code section 832.7 contains important provisions regarding the specific types of records that are subject to disclosure, which information may be redacted from the records, and under what circumstances the agency may delay disclosure and for how long.

Law enforcement agencies and custodians of records should prepare for significant numbers of new requests for this information when the new laws take effect, and should consult with legal counsel regarding the possible need for new policies and procedures. source

California bill requires cops to release body cam video

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A longstanding national debate about police transparency and privacy has been reignited in California with legislation that would require law enforcement agencies to release body camera video and recordings of fatal police shootings and other significant incidents.

The proposal, which comes amid a push across the U.S. for body camera recordings to be released more quickly after fatal police shootings, seeks to establish a statewide policy on when body camera footage and other audio and video recordings should be released.

The state Senate’s Public Safety Committee has scheduled a hearing Tuesday on Assembly Bill 748, which would amend California’s public records statute to limit the discretion that police departments have for withholding body camera videos. The proposed measure would require police departments to release video in cases where law enforcement officers use force or in incidents where it is believed there is a violation of law or public policy.

More than a dozen law enforcement organizations oppose the measure and many contend it should be up to local police departments to determine when, if ever, body camera footage should be released.

State lawmakers have failed to pass a handful of different bills in the last few years that addressed body-worn video, including establishing policies on when officers should turn their cameras on and off and when the public would have access to videos.

Several California police departments, including the Los Angeles Police Department, maintain policies denying the disclosure of body camera videos and consider the footage to be investigative records that are exempt from the state’s open records law.

“We have a patchwork of policies and in some instances, very little policy, as to when the public can access the information and when the public can’t,” said Assemblyman Phil Ting, who introduced the bill. “Body cameras were created to improve greater public trust between law enforcement and community members and without access to that video footage we’re not really able to achieve those goals.”

Ting, a Democrat, says the bill “strikes a fair balance” because it also carves out several exemptions, which allow police departments to withhold videos if there’s more of a public interest in not disclosing the recordings and to withhold recordings that are part of an ongoing investigation for up to 90 days.

Advocates of the bill, including the American Civil Liberties Union, say the legislation is an important step forward in ensuring police transparency, especially after fatal police shootings.

“This is an area where California law really lags behind the rest of the country in allowing transparency,” said Peter Bibring, the director of policing practices at the ACLU of Southern California.

Opponents argue that because the bill requires police to release the recordings after 90 days, it could compromise ongoing criminal investigations and disciplinary proceedings.

“This bill will taint ongoing police investigations and all but kills the impartiality of the investigation process,” said Craig Lally, the president of the Los Angeles Police Protective League, the union that represents city police officers. source

AB748 – Audio and Video Recordings

Many law enforcement agencies withhold video and audio recordings of serious use of force incidents as investigatory records under Government Code Section 6254(f). AB748 adds an exception to the investigatory record exemption to now require disclosure of recordings related to a “critical incident.” Critical incident is defined as an incident involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or an incident in which the use of force resulted in death or great bodily injury. A law enforcement agency may redact the recordings if the agency demonstrates that the public interest in disclosure is outweighed by a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy. Agencies should consider using redaction technology to redact, blur, or distort the recording to protect the privacy interest while still allowing disclosure. An agency may only withhold a video or audio recording in its entirety if the agency demonstrates that the privacy interest cannot be adequately protected by use of redaction technology.

A law enforcement agency may withhold the release of a recording for 45 days if the agency determines the disclosure would substantially interfere with an active criminal or administrative investigation. As with the personnel records affected by SB1421, any delay beyond the initial time period will impose a significant burden on the agency to justify the delay. The law enforcement agency will be required to reevaluate the nondisclosure and state its justification to the requestor in writing at regular intervals. source

Assembly Bill 748

Existing law, the California Public Records Act, requires that public records, as defined, be available to the public for inspection and made promptly available to any person. Existing law makes records of investigations conducted by any state or local police agency exempt from these requirements. Existing law requires specified information regarding the investigation of crimes to be disclosed to the public unless disclosure would endanger the safety of a person involved in an investigation or would endanger the successful completion of the investigation.

This bill, commencing July 1, 2019, allows a video or audio recording that relates to a critical incident, as defined, to be withheld for 45 calendar days if disclosure would substantially interfere with an active investigation, subject to extensions, as specified. The bill allows the recording to be withheld if the public interest in withholding video or audio recording clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure because the release of the recording would, based on the facts and circumstances depicted in the recording, violate the reasonable expectation of privacy of a subject depicted in the recording, in which case the bill allows the recording to be redacted to protect that interest. If the agency demonstrates that the reasonable expectation of privacy of a subject depicted in the recording cannot adequately be protected through redaction, the bill requires that the recording be promptly disclosed to a subject of the recording, his or her parent, guardian, or representative, as applicable, or his or her heir, beneficiary, immediate family member, or authorized legal representative, if deceased.

For purposes of this paragraph, a video or audio recording relates to a critical incident if it depicts any of the following incidents:

An incident involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer.
An incident in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death or in great bodily injury. source

Read the full bill text for AB 748

Governor Signs SB 1421 and AB 748, Dramatically Increasing Public Access to Peace Officer Personnel Records

Assembly Bill 748 Makes Video Evidence Captured by Police Agencies in Two Types of Cases Subject to Disclosure as Public Records

Assembly Bill 748, introduced by Assembly member Phil Ting, changes previous law under the California Public Records Act (CPRA) relating to video evidence captured by police officers during investigations and/or detentions of individuals. This Bill was signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown on Sunday, September 30, 2018, and will take effect on July 1, 2019.

Prior to the enactment of AB 748, video and audio evidence of any type (i.e., light-bar camera, body camera, taser camera) was exempt from disclosure as an “investigatory record” under the California Public Records Act if the video evidence recorded an officer contacting/detaining anyone to investigate whether a violation of any law had occurred (Haney v. Superior Court (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1061).

Assembly Bill 748 will require disclosure of a video or audio recording of a “critical incident” within time limits specified in the Bill. The law defines a “critical incident” as either a discharge of a firearm by an officer or the use of any type of force which results in death or great bodily injury. The generally accepted definition of “great bodily injury” in California is any “significant or substantial physical injury.” (Penal Code § 12022.7(f)).

The rules concerning the obligation of a public agency to disclose video or audio evidence of a “critical incident” are somewhat murky, and will undoubtedly have to be clarified through future court proceedings which will occur when an agency refuses to disclose video or audio evidence under the CPRA.

However, at present, the language of AB 748 provides that the public agency’s disclosure obligations are as follows:

In the event the Agency receives a Public Records Act Request relating to an “active criminal or administrative investigation” of an OIS or other use of force causing great bodily injury, the Agency may initially delay disclosure of the video/audio under the “active criminal investigation “exemption for a maximum of 45 days.

Thereafter, in the event the “active criminal and or administrative investigation” continues beyond the initial 45 day period following receipt of the CPRA request, the Agency may thereafter delay disclosure of the audio/video for up to one year if the agency can demonstrate that disclosure would continue to interfere with the active investigation. We expect that this issue will probably be litigated between the person/entity making the CPRA request and the governmental agency in the event that the agency declines to release the audio/video after the initial 45 day period.

AB 748 allows the Agency to continue to delay disclosure even after 1 year. However, if the Agency does that, it is required to demonstrate (most likely in a court of law in a Writ of Mandate proceeding) by “clear and convincing evidence” that disclosure of the audio/video would still “substantially interfere with the investigation.” In addition, if the Agency continues to delay disclosure after one year, the Agency must provide the requestor an estimated date when the Agency will disclose the audio/video, and the Agency is further required to reassess the withholding of the audio/video and notify the requestor every 30 days thereafter.

AB 748 allows the Agency to use “redaction technology” (by blurring faces of persons depicted in a video) to “prevent violations of the reasonable expectation of privacy” of the person(s) depicted. This may mean that the Agency would be permitted to blur the face of a juvenile, a crime victim, a bystander, or a person whose image is captured by a body camera in a hospital (as examples). However, the Bill also states that if the “reasonable expectation of privacy” of a person depicted in a video cannot be protected through the use of redaction technology, the Agency can then continue to withhold disclosure of the audio/video pursuant to a CPRA request. However, in the event the Agency withholds the audio/video from public disclosure under these circumstances, it will be required to provide a copy of the audio/video to the person depicted in the video and/or his/her legal representative (who may then provide the video to the media).

The concern of this Firm about the release of agency captured video and audio of officer-involved shootings or other substantial uses of force resulting in great bodily injury is the fact that this type of evidence is always graphic and can be quite unsettling to persons unaccustomed to seeing the application of force to subdue or arrest individuals. Public disclosure has the potential to create public hysteria concerning virtually any police use of force and therefore increase political and media pressure on elected and appointed officials to take disciplinary action and/or file criminal charges against the peace officers depicted in these videos.

RLS has been undertaking careful analysis of video evidence of law enforcement actions for over two decades. We will continue to perform the critical analyses which often demonstrate that OISs and other uses of force are lawfully permitted uses of force. It is only through careful and considered analysis of these videos that we can ensure that officers involved in these matters are not subjected to erroneous and inflammatory assertions made by members of the public who have little understanding or appreciation of the rights and obligations of officers to use physical force under the law, and who will likely react to video and/or audio evidence of police use of force on only first impression and emotion. source

The California public will have a greater right to access police body camera footage, and any other audio or video recording acquired by any police agency or state prosecution office, under the Public Records Act with the passage of Assembly Bill 748. The law mandates that audio and visual recordings of “critical incidents” resulting in either the discharge of a firearm by law enforcement or in death or great bodily injury to a person from the use of force by law enforcement are to be made publicly available under the PRA within 45 days of the incident, with limited exceptions. Approved by Gov. Jerry Brown late last month, AB 748 goes into effect July 1.

Under existing law, the public is entitled to certain information contained within complaints and investigations of crimes, although public agencies may otherwise withhold material that would endanger either the success of an ongoing criminal investigation or the safety of people involved in that investigation. Under AB 748, recordings acquired by law enforcement and prosecutors must generally be disclosed in response to a PRA request within 45 days of the “critical incident” or the date the public agency reasonably should have known it occurred.

A public agency may delay disclosure of the recording for between 45 days and 1 year during an active criminal or administrative investigation, but only if disclosure would “substantially interfere” with that ongoing investigation. Examples of such interference include endangering a witness’ or confidential source’s safety. After 1 year following the critical incident, a public agency may withhold the audio or visual recording only if the agency demonstrates, by clear and convincing evidence, that disclosure would still substantially interfere with an ongoing investigation. Under AB 748, the public agency is required to reassess the withholding of that recording and notify the PRA requester every 30 days. Any time a public agency withholds a recording on that criteria, the requester must be notified in writing.

Once the specific basis for withholding the recording of a critical incident is resolved, it must be disclosed. However, if a public agency demonstrates that the reasonable expectation of privacy for individuals depicted in the recording outweighs the public’s interest in disclosure, the public agency must use “redaction technology, including blurring or distorting images or audio” to protect those privacy interests prior to that recording’s disclosure. If the public agency demonstrates that the reasonable expectation of privacy cannot be adequately protected by redaction, the public agency may withhold the recording. However, a redacted or unredacted copy of that recording must be made promptly available to any person (or designated representative) whose privacy interest is protected by public nondisclosure. AB 748 does not apply to peace officers employed by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. source

More access also below

Section 832.7 – Peace officer or custodial officer personnel records

Senate Bill No. 1421 – California Public Records Act

Assembly Bill 748 Makes Video Evidence Captured by Police Agencies Subject to Disclosure as Public Records

SB 2, Creating Police Decertification Process and Expanding Civil Liability Exposure

California Senate Bill 16 (SB 16) – 2023-2024 – Peace officers: Release of Records

The Right To Know: How To Fulfill The Public’s Right Of Access To Police Records

PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST CONTACTS for Los Angeles County (click here for media policy)

How Access to California Police Records

Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department SB-1421 Records

Obtaining a Report from LASD Records (You, 3rd party or consel can obtain)

SEARCH SB-1421 SB-16 Incidents of LA County, Oakland

SB1421 – Form Access to California Police Records

California Statewide CPRA Requests Submit a CPRA Request

How do I submit a request for information?

To submit a request send the request via mail, fax, or email to the agency. Some agencies list specific departments or people whose job it is to respond to PRA requests, so check their websites or call them for further info. Always keep a copy of your request so that you can show what you submitted and when.

from the ACLU we have 2 types of SB 1421 Templates for Sample Requests

1. Incident Based Request: Use this template if you want records related to a particular incident, like the investigative record for a specific police shooting, an arrest where you believe an officer may have been found to have filed a false report, or to find out whether complaint that an officer committed sexual assault was sustained.
ACLU Download Word document | ACLU Download PDF

or from us Download Word document | or from us Download PDF

2. Officer Based Request: Use this template if you want to find any public records of misconduct related to a particular officer or if he or she has been involved in past serious uses of force.
ACLU Download Word document | ACLU Download PDF

or from us Download Word document | or from us Download PDF

We also have more robust sample letters below:

Sample Letter | SB 1421 & SB 16 Records

Download Word document | Download PDF

Sample Letter | Police Recordings

Download Word document | Download PDF

The CPRA is now located at Government Code sections 7920.000-7931.000
The First Amendment Coalition also has some useful information to help explain the PRA process.

To Learn More…. Read MORE Below and click the links Below

Abuse & Neglect – The Mandated Reporters (Police, D.A & Medical & the Bad Actors)

Mandated Reporter Laws – Nurses, District Attorney’s, and Police should listen up
If You Would Like to Learn More About: The California Mandated Reporting LawClick Here

To Read the Penal Code § 11164-11166 – Child Abuse or Neglect Reporting Act – California Penal Code 11164-11166Article 2.5. (CANRA) Click Here

Mandated Reporter formMandated ReporterFORM SS 8572.pdf – The Child Abuse

ALL POLICE CHIEFS, SHERIFFS AND COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENTS INFO BULLETIN:
Click Here Officers and DA’s for (Procedure to Follow)

It Only Takes a Minute to Make a Difference in the Life of a Child learn more below

You can learn more here California Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Law its a PDF file

Learn More About True Threats Here below….

We also have the The Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) – 1st Amendment

CURRENT TEST = We also have the The ‘Brandenburg test’ for incitement to violence – 1st Amendment

We also have the The Incitement to Imminent Lawless Action Test– 1st Amendment

We also have the True Threats – Virginia v. Black is most comprehensive Supreme Court definition – 1st Amendment

We also have the Watts v. United States – True Threat Test – 1st Amendment

We also have the Clear and Present Danger Test – 1st Amendment

We also have the Gravity of the Evil Test – 1st Amendment

We also have the Elonis v. United States (2015) – Threats – 1st Amendment

Learn More About What is Obscene…. be careful about education it may enlighten you

We also have the Miller v. California – 3 Prong Obscenity Test (Miller Test) – 1st Amendment

We also have the Obscenity and Pornography – 1st Amendment

Learn More About Police, The Government Officials and You….

$$ Retaliatory Arrests and Prosecution $$

Anti-SLAPP Law in California

Freedom of Assembly – Peaceful Assembly – 1st Amendment Right

Supreme Court sets higher bar for prosecuting threats under First Amendment 2023 SCOTUS

We also have the Brayshaw v. City of Tallahassee – 1st Amendment – Posting Police Address

We also have the Publius v. Boyer-Vine –1st Amendment – Posting Police Address

We also have the Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida (2018) – 1st Amendment – Retaliatory Police Arrests

We also have the Nieves v. Bartlett (2019) – 1st Amendment – Retaliatory Police Arrests

We also have the Hartman v. Moore (2006) – 1st Amendment – Retaliatory Police Arrests
Retaliatory Prosecution Claims Against Government Officials – 1st Amendment

We also have the Reichle v. Howards (2012) – 1st Amendment – Retaliatory Police Arrests
Retaliatory Prosecution Claims Against Government Officials – 1st Amendment

Freedom of the Press – Flyers, Newspaper, Leaflets, Peaceful Assembly – 1$t Amendment – Learn More Here

Vermont’s Top Court Weighs: Are KKK Fliers – 1st Amendment Protected Speech

We also have the Insulting letters to politician’s home are constitutionally protected, unless they are ‘true threats’ – Letters to Politicians Homes – 1st Amendment

We also have the First Amendment Encyclopedia very comprehensive – 1st Amendment

Sanctions and Attorney Fee Recovery for Bad Actors

FAM § 3027.1 – Attorney’s Fees and Sanctions For False Child Abuse Allegations – Family Code 3027.1 – Click Here

FAM § 271 – Awarding Attorney Fees– Family Code 271 Family Court Sanction Click Here

Awarding Discovery Based Sanctions in Family Law Cases – Click Here

FAM § 2030 – Bringing Fairness & Fee Recovery – Click Here

Zamos v. Stroud – District Attorney Liable for Bad Faith Action – Click Here

Malicious Use of Vexatious Litigant – Vexatious Litigant Order Reversed

Mi$Conduct – Pro$ecutorial Mi$Conduct Prosecutor$

Attorney Rule$ of Engagement – Government (A.K.A. THE PRO$UCTOR) and Public/Private Attorney

What is a Fiduciary Duty; Breach of Fiduciary Duty

The Attorney’s Sworn Oath

Malicious Prosecution / Prosecutorial Misconduct – Know What it is!

New Supreme Court Ruling – makes it easier to sue police

Possible courses of action Prosecutorial Misconduct

Misconduct by Judges & Prosecutor – Rules of Professional Conduct

Functions and Duties of the Prosecutor – Prosecution Conduct

Standards on Prosecutorial Investigations – Prosecutorial Investigations

Information On Prosecutorial Discretion

Why Judges, District Attorneys or Attorneys Must Sometimes Recuse Themselves

Fighting Discovery Abuse in Litigation – Forensic & Investigative Accounting – Click Here

Criminal Motions § 1:9 – Motion for Recusal of Prosecutor

Pen. Code, § 1424 – Recusal of Prosecutor

Removing Corrupt Judges, Prosecutors, Jurors and other Individuals & Fake Evidence from Your Case

National District Attorneys Association puts out its standards
National Prosecution Standards – NDD can be found here

The Ethical Obligations of Prosecutors in Cases Involving Postconviction Claims of Innocence

ABA – Functions and Duties of the Prosecutor – Prosecution Conduct

Prosecutor’s Duty Duty to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence Fordham Law Review PDF

Chapter 14 Disclosure of Exculpatory and Impeachment Information PDF

Mi$Conduct – Judicial Mi$Conduct Judge$

Prosecution Of Judges For Corrupt Practice$

Code of Conduct for United States Judge$

Disqualification of a Judge for Prejudice

Judicial Immunity from Civil and Criminal Liability

Recusal of Judge – CCP § 170.1 – Removal a Judge – How to Remove a Judge

l292 Disqualification of Judicial Officer – C.C.P. 170.6 Form

How to File a Complaint Against a Judge in California?

Commission on Judicial Performance – Judge Complaint Online Form

Why Judges, District Attorneys or Attorneys Must Sometimes Recuse Themselves

Removing Corrupt Judges, Prosecutors, Jurors and other Individuals & Fake Evidence from Your Case

DUE PROCESS READS>>>>>>

Due Process vs Substantive Due Process learn more HERE

Understanding Due Process – This clause caused over 200 overturns in just DNA alone Click Here

Mathews v. Eldridge – Due Process – 5th, & 14th Amendment

Mathews Test – 3 Part Test– Amdt5.4.5.4.2 Mathews Test

“Unfriending” Evidence – 5th Amendment

At the Intersection of Technology and Law

We also have the Introducing TEXT & EMAIL Digital Evidence in California Courts – 1st Amendment
so if you are interested in learning about Introducing Digital Evidence in California State Courts
click here for SCOTUS rulings

Right to Travel freely – When the Government Obstructs Your Movement – 14th Amendment & 5th Amendment

What is Probable Cause? and.. How is Probable Cause Established?

Misuse of the Warrant System – California Penal Code § 170 – Crimes Against Public Justice – 4th, 5th, & 14th Amendment

What Is Traversing a Warrant (a Franks Motion)?

Dwayne Furlow v. Jon Belmar – Police Warrant – Immunity Fail – 4th, 5th, & 14th Amendment

Obstruction of Justice and Abuse of Process

What Is Considered Obstruction of Justice in California?

Penal Code 135 PC – Destroying or Concealing Evidence

Penal Code 141 PC – Planting or Tampering with Evidence in California

Penal Code 142 PC – Peace Officer Refusing to Arrest or Receive Person Charged with Criminal Offense

Penal Code 182 PC – “Criminal Conspiracy” Laws & Penalties

Penal Code 664 PC – “Attempted Crimes” in California

Penal Code 32 PC – Accessory After the Fact

Penal Code 31 PC – Aiding and Abetting Laws

What is Abuse of Process?

What is a Due Process Violation? – 4th Amendment & 14th Amendment

What’s the Difference between Abuse of Process, Malicious Prosecution and False Arrest?

Defeating Extortion and Abuse of Process in All Their Ugly Disguises

The Use and Abuse of Power by Prosecutors (Justice for All)

ARE PEOPLE LYING ON YOU?
CAN YOU PROVE IT? IF YES…. THEN YOU ARE IN LUCK!

Penal Code 118 PC – California Penalty of “Perjury” Law

Federal Perjury – Definition by Law

Penal Code 132 PC – Offering False Evidence

Penal Code 134 PC – Preparing False Evidence

Penal Code 118.1 PC – Police Officer$ Filing False Report$

Spencer v. Peters– Police Fabrication of Evidence – 14th Amendment

Penal Code 148.5 PC – Making a False Police Report in California

Penal Code 115 PC – Filing a False Document in California

Misconduct by Government Know Your Rights Click Here

Under 42 U.S.C. $ection 1983 – Recoverable Damage$

42 U.S. Code § 1983 – Civil Action for Deprivation of Right$

18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of Right$ Under Color of Law

18 U.S. Code § 241 – Conspiracy against Right$

Section 1983 Lawsuit – How to Bring a Civil Rights Claim

Suing for Misconduct – Know More of Your Right$

Police Misconduct in California – How to Bring a Lawsuit

How to File a complaint of Police Misconduct? (Tort Claim Forms here as well)

Deprivation of Rights – Under Color of the Law

What is Sua Sponte and How is it Used in a California Court?

Removing Corrupt Judges, Prosecutors, Jurors
and other Individuals & Fake Evidence from Your Case

Anti-SLAPP Law in California

Freedom of Assembly – Peaceful Assembly – 1st Amendment Right

How to Recover “Punitive Damages” in a California Personal Injury Case

Pro Se Forms and Forms Information(Tort Claim Forms here as well)

What is Tort?

Tort Claims Form
File Government Claim for Eligible Compensation

Complete and submit the Government Claim Form, including the required $25 filing fee or Fee Waiver Request, and supporting documents, to the GCP.

See Information Guides and Resources below for more information.

Tort Claims – Claim for Damage, Injury, or Death (see below)

Federal – Federal SF-95 Tort Claim Form Tort Claim online here or download it here or here from us

California – California Tort Claims Act – California Tort Claim Form Here or here from us

Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights (Non-Prisoner Complaint) and also UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT PDF

Taken from the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Forms source

WRITS and WRIT Types in the United States

How do I submit a request for information?

Templates for Sample Requests

Incident Based Request: Use this template if you want records related to a particular incident, like the investigative record for a specific police shooting, an arrest where you believe an officer may have been found to have filed a false report, or to find out whether complaint that an officer committed sexual assault was sustained.
ACLU Download Word document | ACLU Download PDF

or from us Download Word document | or from us Download PDF

Officer Based Request: Use this template if you want to find any public records of misconduct related to a particular officer or if he or she has been involved in past serious uses of force.
ACLU Download Word document | ACLU Download PDF

or from us Download Word document | or from us Download PDF

The First Amendment Coalition also has some useful information to help explain the PRA process.

Sample Letter | SB 1421 & SB 16 Records

Download Word document | Download PDF

Appealing/Contesting Case/Order/Judgment/Charge/ Suppressing Evidence

First Things First: What Can Be Appealed and What it Takes to Get Started – Click Here

Options to Appealing– Fighting A Judgment Without Filing An Appeal Settlement Or Mediation

Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1008 Motion to Reconsider

Penal Code 1385 – Dismissal of the Action for Want of Prosecution or Otherwise

Penal Code 1538.5 – Motion To Suppress Evidence in a California Criminal Case

CACI No. 1501 – Wrongful Use of Civil Proceedings

Penal Code “995 Motions” in California – Motion to Dismiss

WIC § 700.1 – If Court Grants Motion to Suppress as Evidence

Suppression Of Exculpatory Evidence / Presentation Of False Or Misleading Evidence – Click Here

Notice of Appeal — Felony (Defendant) (CR-120) 1237, 1237.5, 1538.5(m) – Click Here

California Motions in Limine – What is a Motion in Limine?

Petition for a Writ of Mandate or Writ of Mandamus (learn more…)

PC 1385 – Dismissal of the Action for Want of Prosecution or Otherwise

Retrieving Evidence / Internal Investigation Case

Conviction Integrity Unit (“CIU”) of the Orange County District Attorney OCDA – Click Here

Fighting Discovery Abuse in Litigation – Forensic & Investigative Accounting – Click Here

Orange County / LA County Data, BodyCam, Police Report, Incident Reports,
and all other available known requests for data below:

SEARCH SB-1421 SB-16 Incidents of LA County, Oakland

California Senate Bill 16 (SB 16) – 2023-2024 – Peace officers: Release of Records

APPLICATION TO EXAMINE LOCAL ARREST RECORD UNDER CPC 13321 Click Here

Learn About Policy 814: Discovery Requests OCDA Office – Click Here

Request for Proof In-Custody Form Click Here

Request for Clearance Letter Form Click Here

Application to Obtain Copy of State Summary of Criminal HistoryForm Click Here

Request Authorization Form Release of Case Information – Click Here

Texts / Emails AS EVIDENCE: Authenticating Texts for California Courts

Can I Use Text Messages in My California Divorce?

Two-Steps And Voila: How To Authenticate Text Messages

How Your Texts Can Be Used As Evidence?

California Supreme Court Rules:
Text Messages Sent on Private Government Employees Lines
Subject to Open Records Requests

case law: City of San Jose v. Superior Court – Releasing Private Text/Phone Records of Government Employees

Public Records Practices After the San Jose Decision

The Decision Briefing Merits After the San Jose Decision

Rules of Admissibility – Evidence Admissibility

Confrontation Clause – Sixth Amendment

Exceptions To The Hearsay Rule – Confronting Evidence

Prosecutor’s Obligation to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence

Successful Brady/Napue Cases – Suppression of Evidence

Cases Remanded or Hearing Granted Based on Brady/Napue Claims

Unsuccessful But Instructive Brady/Napue Cases

ABA – Functions and Duties of the Prosecutor – Prosecution Conduct

Frivolous, Meritless or Malicious Prosecution – fiduciary duty

Section 832.7 – Peace officer or custodial officer personnel records

Senate Bill No. 1421 – California Public Records Act

Assembly Bill 748 Makes Video Evidence Captured by Police Agencies Subject to Disclosure as Public Records

SB 2, Creating Police Decertification Process and Expanding Civil Liability Exposure

The Right To Know: How To Fulfill The Public’s Right Of Access To Police Records

How Access to California Police Records

Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department SB-1421 Records

SB1421 – Form Access to California Police Records

California Statewide CPRA Requests Submit a CPRA Request

Electronic Audio Recording Request of OC Court Hearings

CPRA Public Records Act Data Request – Click Here

Here is the Public Records Service Act Portal for all of CALIFORNIA Click Here

Police BodyCam Footage Release

Cleaning Up Your Record

Tossing Out an Inferior Judgement – When the Judge Steps on Due Process – California Constitution Article VI – Judicial Section 13

Penal Code 851.8 PC – Certificate of Factual Innocence in California

Petition to Seal and Destroy Adult Arrest Records – Download the PC 851.8 BCIA 8270 Form Here

SB 393: The Consumer Arrest Record Equity Act – 851.87 – 851.92 & 1000.4 – 11105 – CARE ACT

Expungement California – How to Clear Criminal Records Under Penal Code 1203.4 PC

How to Vacate a Criminal Conviction in California – Penal Code 1473.7 PC

Seal & Destroy a Criminal Record

Cleaning Up Your Criminal Record in California (focus OC County)

Governor Pardons –What Does A Governor’s Pardon Do

How to Get a Sentence Commuted (Executive Clemency) in California

How to Reduce a Felony to a Misdemeanor – Penal Code 17b PC Motion

PARENT CASE LAW

RELATIONSHIP WITH YOUR CHILDREN &
YOUR CONSTITUIONAL RIGHT$ + RULING$

YOU CANNOT GET BACK TIME BUT YOU CAN HIT THOSE IMMORAL NON CIVIC MINDED PUNKS WHERE THEY WILL FEEL YOU = THEIR BANK

Family Law Appeal – Learn about appealing a Family Court Decision Here

9.3 Section 1983 Claim Against Defendant as (Individuals) — 14th Amendment this CODE PROTECT$ all US CITIZEN$

Amdt5.4.5.6.2 – Parental and Children’s Rights“> – 5th Amendment this CODE PROTECT$ all US CITIZEN$

9.32 – Interference with Parent / Child Relationship – 14th Amendment this CODE PROTECT$ all US CITIZEN$

California Civil Code Section 52.1
Interference with exercise or enjoyment of individual rights

Parent’s Rights & Children’s Bill of Rights
SCOTUS RULINGS FOR YOUR PARENT RIGHTS

SEARCH of our site for all articles relating for PARENTS RIGHTS Help!

Child’s Best Interest in Custody Cases

Are You From Out of State (California)? FL-105 GC-120(A)
Declaration Under Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA)

Learn More:Family Law Appeal

Necessity Defense in Criminal Cases

Can You Transfer Your Case to Another County or State With Family Law? – Challenges to Jurisdiction

Venue in Family Law Proceedings

GRANDPARENT CASE LAW

Do Grandparents Have Visitation Rights? If there is an Established Relationship then Yes

Third “PRESUMED PARENT” Family Code 7612(C) – Requires Established Relationship Required

Cal State Bar PDF to read about Three Parent Law –
The State Bar of California family law news issue4 2017 vol. 39, no. 4.pdf

Distinguishing Request for Custody from Request for Visitation

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) – Grandparents – 14th Amendment

S.F. Human Servs. Agency v. Christine C. (In re Caden C.)

9.32 Particular Rights – Fourteenth Amendment – Interference with Parent / Child Relationship

Child’s Best Interest in Custody Cases

When is a Joinder in a Family Law Case Appropriate? – Reason for Joinder

Joinder In Family Law Cases – CRC Rule 5.24

GrandParents Rights To Visit
Family Law Packet OC Resource Center
Family Law Packet SB Resource Center

Motion to vacate an adverse judgment

Mandatory Joinder vs Permissive Joinder – Compulsory vs Dismissive Joinder

When is a Joinder in a Family Law Case Appropriate?

Kyle O. v. Donald R. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 848

Punsly v. Ho (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1099

Zauseta v. Zauseta (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1242

S.F. Human Servs. Agency v. Christine C. (In re Caden C.)

Ian J. v. Peter M

Family Treatment Court Best Practice Standards

Download Here this Recommended Citation

Epic Criminal / Civil Right$ SCOTUS Help – Click Here

Epic Parents SCOTUS Ruling – Parental Right$ Help – Click Here

Judge’s & Prosecutor’s Jurisdiction– SCOTUS RULINGS on

Prosecutional Misconduct – SCOTUS Rulings re: Prosecutors

Please take time to learn new UPCOMING

The PROPOSED Parental Rights Amendment
to the US CONSTITUTION Click Here to visit their site

The proposed Parental Rights Amendment will specifically add parental rights in the text of the U.S. Constitution, protecting these rights for both current and future generations.

The Parental Rights Amendment is currently in the U.S. Senate, and is being introduced in the U.S. House.

Perjury & False Statements – What Happens When You Lie Under Oath

The Truth News — Wed, 13 Mar 2024 21:57:30 +0000

Nothing But the Truth: What Happens When You Lie Under Oath

Perjury & False Statements

Juries and judges often base verdicts and other important decisions on sworn testimony and signed documents. If you’ve served on a jury, you’ve heard the court ask a witness taking the stand: “Do you swear or affirm that the statements you will make are the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?”

Statements given under oath and certain legal documents carry an expectation of truthfulness. But how can anyone know for sure that witnesses and other parties involved in a legal matter are telling the truth? It is not always possible to be certain. Yet, those who knowingly mislead a court may face serious criminal charges of perjury.

This article provides a general overview of the crime of perjury. It provides examples of and possible defenses to the offense. It also reviews federal and state perjury statutes.

What Is Perjury?

To “perjure oneself” is to make false statements under oath knowingly. Or it is to sign a legal document known to be false or to contain false statements. The false statement must also be related to a material fact. That is, it can affect the course or outcome of the proceeding.

The seriousness of perjury charges derives from its attack on the truth. The foundation of the legal system depends on trust and credibility. After all, one sworn statement has the power to tip the scales of justice and alter a person’s life.

Perjury qualifies as a crime against justice. Lying under oath compromises the work of an official proceeding. It challenges the authority of courts, grand juries, governing bodies, and public officials throughout government and the legal system. Other crimes against justice include criminal contempt of court, probation violation, and tampering with evidence.

Examples of Perjury

There are many ways a person could perjure themselves. In its simplest form, a person commits the crime either in statements made under oath or signed documents. Here are some examples:

While completing a sworn affidavit during a bankruptcy court proceeding, John intentionally understates his monthly income by $2,000. John knows he has underreported the income. He signs the printed document and files it with the judge’s clerk.

Mary is a suspect facing criminal charges. Jill is sworn in and testifies in the criminal case trial. She states that her friend, Mary, was having lunch at her house when the crime occurred. Credit card receipts and mobile phone records say otherwise. The alibi claim is central to Mary’s defense.

Frank omits the $15,000 he won at a casino from his federal income tax return. It’s not a mistake. Frank intends to hide his winnings. He signs and sends the return to the IRS.

In all these examples, evidence of the crime of perjury comes to light when testimony or signed statements directly conflict with verifiable information. For example, authorities may investigate John’s conduct, which understated his monthly income in bankruptcy court. When his employer’s payroll records show a higher income, he may face perjury charges. The state will claim he provided false information on a sworn statement.

Since witnesses and others involved in legal proceedings may unintentionally provide false testimony in good faith, prosecutors must proceed with caution. They must be able to prove the intent to deceive or mislead. For example, a witness to a robbery testifies that the suspect had green eyes and a scar on his left cheek. Yet, other evidence points to a suspect with blue eyes and a scar on his right cheek. If the witness was not trying to protect the assailant by lying about key facts, she has not committed perjury. Her hazy memory of the incident should not become the basis of a criminal offense.

Federal and State Perjury Law and Penalties

Perjury cases can go forward in federal or state courts. As with all crimes, to obtain a conviction, the state must prove each and every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

Under federal law (18 USC § 1621), for example, the elements of the crime of perjury include:

Having taken an oath before any competent tribunal (court), officer, or person;
In any case where U.S. law authorizes an oath for truthful testimony, declaration, deposition, or certification;
Willfully and contrary to such oath;
States or subscribes to any material matter which they do not believe to be true

Federal law also outlaws the subornation of perjury, or the procuring of perjury by another person. The penalty for a federal perjury crime includes fines and imprisonment for up to five years. Judges have the discretion to use leniency (including probation instead of prison) when proper.

Most state laws have provisions that mirror federal law. The New York state penal code provides for various degrees of perjury crimes and criminal offenses for making apparently false statements. At the lower end, perjury in the third-degree is a class A misdemeanor offense. This crime involves making a false statement while giving testimony under oath or in a subscribed written instrument when under oath. The crime rises to a felony offense of perjury in the second degree when:

The statement is material;
Made in a subscribed written instrument; and
Made to mislead a public official in his official functions

The offense can become a felony charge of perjury in the first degree when the false statement is material and occurs during testimony.

Under law, perjury occurs when, in any official proceeding, a person knowingly makes a false statement while under oath or affirmation. The falsity must involve material statements. The statute also includes situations where someone knowingly swears or affirms a false statement made previously. The offense is a third-degree felony. Punishment can range from nine to 36 months in state prison and/or a fine of up to $10,000.

Ohio’s statute states that a person cannot claim they did not believe the false statement to be material. The law also applies even when there is a showing of some irregularity in the oath taken. If a person made two contradictory statements, the state does not have to prove which one is false. It must convince the jury that one of the statements is false. Yet, the state cannot obtain a perjury conviction only upon one testifying witness’s statement contradicting the defendant’s testimony.

Perjury is rarely charged, and it is difficult for prosecutors to prove. The threat of perjury charges is often a tool lawyers use to ensure that witnesses provide candid testimony to the court.

A conviction can cost someone their livelihood. Anyone who works in a profession where truthfulness is valued—such as the legal profession, law enforcement, and certain public service jobs—might face dismissal. Others who work in regulated industries might lose their professional licenses and see their careers come to an end.

Legal Defenses Associated With Perjury Cases

As the defendant’s intent is key to proving perjury, the state looks for strong evidence to corroborate an intent to mislead or provide false information. Legal defenses to perjury charges likewise seek to raise questions on the issue of intent. They may include any of the following:

A belief that the statement was true even though the defendant was mistaken
Evidence that the defendant misunderstood the question put to him
Claims that the false statement did not address a material fact
The defendant made a prompt recantation of the false statement

A defendant’s non-responsive answers will likely not support a perjury conviction. In a case where a business owner’s response to a question about his personal accounts provided a truthful (although non-responsive) statement about his business accounts, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that the perjury law should not be “loosely construed.” In Bronston v. U.S. (1973), the Court warned that “precise questioning is imperative as a predicate for the offense of perjury.” The Court overturned a jury’s conviction for perjury where the defendant provided a literally truthful statement about his company while not directly answering the question about his own accounts. source

learn MORE:

These laws are permissible under the First Amendment if drafted in a way that meets the high bar set by the Supreme Court in a series of cases, starting with New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.

Learn what the Supreme Court View and Decision reagarding threats is True Threats – Virginia v. Black is most comprehensive Supreme Court definition – 1st Amendment and their decision to create a TRUE THREAT TEST Watts v. United States – True Threat Test – 1st Amendment

also hating an individual is not illegal Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms: There is “NO HATE SPEECH’ exception to the First Amendment

and literature that has words that may bother you, the lines of threats are drawn here Counterman v. Colorado – Supreme Court sets higher bar for prosecuting threats under First Amendment

Perjury & making false statements are serious federal felonies carrying up to 5 years in prison.

Before testifying under oath in any proceeding, or filing papers with government authorities, it is essential to understand the crimes of perjury and making false statements and their potential consequences.

Perjury, under 18 US Code Section 1621, can occur in many settings. It is more than lying under oath while testifying in court. It also includes lying at congressional hearings or in depositions in civil lawsuits. Sworn statements made to governmental agencies like the Internal Revenue Service or in financial affidavits (such as loan applications and tax filings) are also covered.

Suborning perjury applies when a person induces or causes another to commit perjury. (18 US Code Section 1622)

A closely related crime is making false statements under 18 US Code Section 1001.

Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001 makes it a crime to:

1) knowingly and willfully;

2) make any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation;

3) in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative or judicial branch of the United States.

The language of Section 1001 is very broad and applies in cases where a false statement does not meet all the requirements necessary for perjury. For example, perjury covers statements under oath. When a witness’ false statement was not under oath, 18 USC Section 1001 for making false statements to government agents may still apply.

In criminal cases, government investigators often talk to witnesses while out on the field. Lying to investigators during such a witness interview may not constitute perjury, but it can still be punishable as a crime for making false statements.

Like in any investigation, perjury and false statement cases present a range of potential outcomes. Sometimes, it may be possible to avoid formal criminal charges or prison altogether. Prison Professors, an Earning Freedom company, works alongside (not in place of) criminal defense attorneys to help clients proactively navigate through white-collar cases and prosecutions. It’s our experience that more well-informed and proactive clients obtain better outcomes. source

Can I Be Charged with False Statements for Lying in Civil Court?

Lying under oath in a civil court case can have serious consequences. While perjury charges are rare, making false statements in civil litigation can lead to various penalties. Understanding when lying crosses the line into illegal territory is crucial for any participant in a lawsuit. This article examines false statement laws and how they apply in civil court.

Perjury Laws

Perjury refers specifically to lying while under oath. The federal perjury statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1621, applies to statements made in federal court proceedings, including depositions. Most states have similar laws prohibiting perjury in state court cases.

To prove perjury, prosecutors must establish that the defendant:

Knowingly made a false statement
The statement was material to the case
The defendant knew the statement was false when they made it

Merely being mistaken or forgetful is not enough to prove perjury. The government must show the defendant deliberately lied about something important to the case.

Perjury is a felony offense. If convicted in federal court, defendants face fines and up to 5 years in prison. State perjury laws carry similar penalties.

Lying in Civil Litigation

Civil suits do not lead to perjury charges as often as criminal cases. However, lying under oath in a civil case can still be illegal.

In civil litigation, depositions and trials rely heavily on testimony from parties and witnesses. Attorneys use this testimony to establish facts and make arguments. When a witness lies, it undermines the entire process.

While prosecutors rarely pursue perjury charges in civil cases, false statements can have other consequences. Opposing attorneys can seek sanctions through the court. Judges have discretion to penalize dishonest parties in various ways, such as:

Dismissing claims or defenses
Entering default judgment
Paying the other side’s attorney fees
Being held in contempt of court

Additionally, all witnesses in federal cases take an oath to tell the truth “under penalty of perjury.” 18 U.S.C. § 1621 applies to any false material statement made under oath, even in a civil case. So perjury charges are possible if a witness clearly lies about something significant.

Attorneys also have an ethical duty not to knowingly introduce false testimony. They can face professional discipline for suborning perjury.

What Constitutes a False Statement?

Merely being wrong does not necessarily make a statement false under the law. Civil litigation deals with complex factual issues. Witnesses can be honestly mistaken about events or details years after they occurred.

To face sanctions or criminal charges, the witness must knowingly lie about something material to the case. But what constitutes a “false statement” is not always clear cut.

Inaccurate or Misleading Testimony

Witnesses cannot get away with lies by using careful language. Even if their statements are technically true, intentionally misleading or deceptive testimony can be considered false.

For example, a defendant asked about his employment might truthfully state the name of his company. But omitting the fact that he owns the company could mislead the court about his income and assets. Even without directly lying, such intentional omissions could constitute false statements.

Opinions vs. Facts

Expressing opinions generally does not constitute lying under perjury laws. Witnesses may offer subjective viewpoints or interpretations of events. Exaggeration or embellishment is not necessarily illegal.

However, witnesses cannot disguise lies as opinions. Courts look at the context of the statement to determine if the witness deliberately falsified factual information.

Forgetfulness vs. Intentional Lies

Courts allow some leeway for honest mistakes. But witnesses cross a line when they intentionally lie about forgotten details.

If a witness cannot recall certain facts, they should say they do not remember rather than make up false details. Lying about forgotten facts suggests an intent to deceive the court.

Civil vs. Criminal Perjury

A common misconception holds that perjury requires proving intent to deceive “beyond a reasonable doubt,” as in criminal cases. However, civil litigation uses a “preponderance of the evidence” standard.

So in civil cases, judges and juries consider whether it is more likely than not that the witness lied intentionally. The evidence does not have to eliminate any possibility of innocence as it would in a criminal prosecution.

Defenses to Perjury

Defendants in perjury cases may argue they lacked the requisite intent to deceive the court. Some potential defenses include:

Lack of Materiality

The false statement must have been important to the case to constitute perjury. Immaterial lies generally do not have legal consequences.

Defendants may claim the false information did not affect any significant issues in the litigation. But courts often interpret materiality broadly. Any testimony influencing the fact-finder could be considered material.

Confusion or Mistake

As mentioned above, being mistaken is not illegal. Defendants may argue ambiguous questions or faulty memory caused inaccurate testimony.

However, claiming confusion or mistake is generally not a viable defense if there is evidence of intentional fabrication.

Mental State

A defendant’s mental state could negate the intent required for perjury. Evidence of mental illness or diminished capacity could undermine allegations of knowing deception.

However, the defendant must show they were unable to comprehend the nature of their false statements or the requirement to tell the truth.

Not Under Oath

Perjury applies only to statements made under oath or affirmation. That includes oral testimony at depositions and trials. It can also apply to affidavits and declarations signed under penalty of perjury.

Defendants may claim their allegedly false statements were not made under oath. But courts likely will not tolerate outright lies just because the witness had not been sworn in yet. source

Is Lying Protected by the First Amendment?

Is lying protected by the First Amendment? This question is at the center of our understanding of free speech and often a subject of our national conversations.

Disinformation can erode trust in democratic institutions and harm national security, public health and our sense of community. But does that mean the government can — or should — punish falsehoods?

Former President Trump was indicted on charges related to his claims about the 2020 election. He has raised the First Amendment free speech right to make these claims as protected political speech, which is at the heart of the First Amendment. Prosecutors are likely to respond that these claims are lies that are not protected by the First Amendment because his words themselves are criminal in nature, that they are evidence of fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud — going beyond words into actions.

Does intentionally lying (as opposed to sincerely believing in some provably false statements) disqualify someone’s speech from First Amendment protection? Or is there some room under the First Amendment for lying to allow people to discuss political issues?

Is lying protected by the First Amendment, or can the government punish lying?

So, is lying protected by the First Amendment? Short answer: Sometimes lies are not protected by the First Amendment. In other cases, they may be considered free speech.

When is lying protected by the First Amendment?

The First Amendment provides strong protection for speech, even in situations where a person is not telling the truth — intentionally or unintentionally.

People may often point to defamation as an example of when lying is not protected by the First Amendment. But the legal definition of defamation is narrow and hard to meet. It goes way beyond telling a lie about someone else.

Each state and the District of Columbia have laws defining defamation that allow anyone who feels they have been defamed to bring a civil lawsuit seeking compensation for damage to their reputation.

These laws are permissible under the First Amendment if drafted in a way that meets the high bar set by the Supreme Court in a series of cases, starting with New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.

In that case, the court held that even false statements about public officials or figures are protected, as long as the speaker doesn’t know that they are false or take reckless disregard for their truth or falsehood. In addition to this “actual malice” standard, to be defamation, the lie in question must:

Harm the subject’s reputation.
Be “material or substantial” (not minor).
Be a provable assertion of fact (not an opinion).
Identify the person bringing the lawsuit.
Be published, i.e., heard by someone other than the speaker and the subject of the statement.
Cause actual economic damage.

The Supreme Court has also said that lying about your military service is protected. In the 2012 case of United States v. Alvarez, the court said that a federal law that criminalized lying about receiving military medals violated the First Amendment. Then-Justice Anthony Kennedy explained that in addition to identifying a specific — not general — harm from the speech, the government must demonstrate that the restriction is necessary to prevent that harm, and this law did not meet those standards.

Lying about the government is specifically protected.

In the Freedom Forum’s 2021 “Where America Stands” survey, 72% of approximately 3,000 respondents agreed that “Political ads that misrepresent the truth should be outlawed.”

But in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the court held that deliberate lies about the government are fully protected. That’s because the government can counter falsehoods about it with its own speech. And it’s likely that other members of the public will come to the government’s defense, either for outright political reasons or simply to ensure the stability of the country, which also continues an open conversation on matters of public concern.

When is lying not protected by the First Amendment?

Despite its strong protection for speech, the First Amendment does not provide absolute protection for everything you say. There are exceptions for some clearly defined “low value” categories of speech, some of which involve lying.

RELATED: What speech is protected by the First Amendment?

One example is committing fraud or false advertising. These unprotected lies induce others to misspend their hard-earned money.

Lying under oath during an official government proceeding, or perjury, is also not protected. These lies come after you have sworn to tell the truth in the sanctity of a courtroom or in filing a false report to police, like the hoaxes of actor Jussie Smollett and Carlee Russell, an Alabama woman who staged her own kidnapping. In these cases, decision-makers rely on your word to spend resources on investigations, determine guilt or innocence, make judgments or pass laws.

Plagiarism is effectively stealing someone’s creative (and perhaps commercial) expression and falsely claiming it as your own. It is not protected by the First Amendment.

Why is lying protected by the First Amendment in some cases?

It can be complex, but lying is not automatically excluded from First Amendment protection.

Shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater is always trotted out as an example of why the First Amendment isn’t absolute. But the people who cite this are either lying or wrong when they use it. The actual quote comes from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes who wrote, “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”

There is a difference between protecting someone who shouts “Fire!” to avoid danger when there is a fire and punishing someone who falsely shouts that word to intentionally put people in danger when none exists. In the second example, the government restricts the lie to prevent injury. This is to ensure we avoid punishing any speech that may have value.

Yes, lies can have value. It is often difficult to decide truth versus falsity, especially in the moment. Theories that are later disproven can be — and often are — labeled as “lies.” But without the ability to challenge otherwise accepted viewpoints, our understanding of the world around us — and of ourselves — might never change. We have a right to learn and to get things wrong in the process.

Most important, if lies were always illegal, we would never be able to hold our government accountable — one of the key reasons the First Amendment is in the Bill of Rights. We force the government to tread lightly around protected speech so we can work things out for ourselves. The First Amendment envisions public discussion without government intervention unless and until a statement might cause direct harm to specific people that cannot be countered quickly through public debate.

The First Amendment demands patience before government intervention, “putting the brakes” on government determining the outcome of truth versus falsity. This is, as Justice William Brennan explained in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, to provide the “breathing space” necessary for free speech to survive.

Simply put: The more people who are affected by a false statement, the more incentive and ability there is to counter it. When it’s left to the people to decide, the space between government participating in that debate and government declaring a winner of that debate remains as large as possible.

The Right To Know: How To Fulfill The Public’s Right Of Access To Police Records

The Truth News — Fri, 29 Dec 2023 09:56:08 +0000

The Right To Know: How To Fulfill The Public’s Right Of Access To Police Records

Democracy depends on the public’s right to know what its government is doing, so it can hold officials accountable. California voters recognized the fundamental importance of public access to documents by enshrining the right of access in the state constitution. But the right of access does not always work smoothly in practice.

Too often, people who request records from their local police departments receive responses stating that due to a “backlog of records requests” or “shortage of personnel,” their requests will not be promptly addressed as required by law. Others receive no response at all. Such violations of the right of access generate costly litigation in the forms of both individual California Public Records Act (“CPRA”) enforcement actions and pattern and practice suits challenging systemic failures to provide access.

Access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state.

— California Public Records Act, Gov’t Code § 6250

Both the California Constitution and the CPRA mandate that agencies provide the public access to records, and neither law relieves a government agency of the obligation to respond to public records requests because it so poorly handled past requests that it developed a backlog. If agencies lack the staffing, technology, or training to ensure timely public access to their records, state and local governments have a duty to allocate resources for that purpose. In most cases, however, agencies will be able to fulfill the public’s right of access with existing resources by removing information bottlenecks that require them to spend unnecessary time and expense on responding to records requests.

This guide focuses on the ways that law enforcement agencies unnecessarily obstruct the flow of public information — and the steps they can take to dismantle the barriers to public access they put up. But California agencies of all kinds can take similar steps to conduct “the people’s business” in an open and accountable way.

source

Right to Know Act (AB 1291)

The California Right to Know Act (AB 1291- Lowenthal) will modernize current privacy law and give Californians an effective tool to monitor how personal information, including about health, finances, your location, politics, religious, sexual orientation, buying habits, and more, is being collected and disclosed in unexpected and potentially harmful ways.

Did you know?

Websites incorporate up to 100 tracking tools that collect personal information about visitors like age, gender, race, income, health concerns and recent purchases for advertising and marketing companies.
Many mobile apps share location, age, gender, phone numbers, and other personal details of both adults and children with third party companies. Women and children have been hurt or killed when location data was shared with abusers.
Facebook apps used by a consumer’s “friend” can often access sensitive information about that consumer, including religious, political, and sexual preferences.
Companies that collect information about consumer activities have exposed sensitive personal information. Target revealed that a woman was pregnant and Facebook outed the sexual orientation of a college student before they told their families.
Data brokers are engaged in the widespread buying, selling, and trading of personal information obtained from mobile phones, banks, social media sites, and stores. Americans have lost jobs and been denied mortgages when data brokers shared incorrect information and scammers use data broker lists to target vulnerable populations like seniors.

The White House, Federal Trade Commission, and California Attorney General all call for data transparency and access for consumers. AB 1291 would meet that call by giving Californians the Right to Know.

What’s happening to your personal information? It’s time to demand the Right to Know so you can better protect your privacy, personal safety, and financial security. Contact your legislator today and urge them to support the Right to Know Act. source

More access also below

Section 832.7 – Peace officer or custodial officer personnel records

Senate Bill No. 1421 – California Public Records Act

Assembly Bill 748 Makes Video Evidence Captured by Police Agencies Subject to Disclosure as Public Records

SB 2, Creating Police Decertification Process and Expanding Civil Liability Exposure

California Senate Bill 16 (SB 16) – 2023-2024 – Peace officers: Release of Records

The Right To Know: How To Fulfill The Public’s Right Of Access To Police Records

PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST CONTACTS for Los Angeles County (click here for media policy)

How Access to California Police Records

Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department SB-1421 Records

Obtaining a Report from LASD Records (You, 3rd party or consel can obtain)

SEARCH SB-1421 SB-16 Incidents of LA County, Oakland

SB1421 – Form Access to California Police Records

California Statewide CPRA Requests Submit a CPRA Request

How do I submit a request for information?

from the ACLU we have 2 types of SB 1421 Templates for Sample Requests

or from us Download Word document | or from us Download PDF

We also have more robust sample letters below:

Sample Letter | SB 1421 & SB 16 Records

Download Word document | Download PDF

Sample Letter | Police Recordings

Download Word document | Download PDF

The CPRA is now located at Government Code sections 7920.000-7931.000
The First Amendment Coalition also has some useful information to help explain the PRA process.

To Learn More…. Read MORE Below and click the links Below

Abuse & Neglect – The Mandated Reporters (Police, D.A & Medical & the Bad Actors)

Mandated Reporter Laws – Nurses, District Attorney’s, and Police should listen up
If You Would Like to Learn More About: The California Mandated Reporting LawClick Here

To Read the Penal Code § 11164-11166 – Child Abuse or Neglect Reporting Act – California Penal Code 11164-11166Article 2.5. (CANRA) Click Here

Mandated Reporter formMandated ReporterFORM SS 8572.pdf – The Child Abuse

ALL POLICE CHIEFS, SHERIFFS AND COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENTS INFO BULLETIN:
Click Here Officers and DA’s for (Procedure to Follow)

It Only Takes a Minute to Make a Difference in the Life of a Child learn more below

You can learn more here California Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Law its a PDF file

Learn More About True Threats Here below….

We also have the The Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) – 1st Amendment

CURRENT TEST = We also have the The ‘Brandenburg test’ for incitement to violence – 1st Amendment

We also have the The Incitement to Imminent Lawless Action Test– 1st Amendment

We also have the True Threats – Virginia v. Black is most comprehensive Supreme Court definition – 1st Amendment

We also have the Watts v. United States – True Threat Test – 1st Amendment

We also have the Clear and Present Danger Test – 1st Amendment

We also have the Gravity of the Evil Test – 1st Amendment

We also have the Elonis v. United States (2015) – Threats – 1st Amendment

Learn More About What is Obscene…. be careful about education it may enlighten you

We also have the Miller v. California – 3 Prong Obscenity Test (Miller Test) – 1st Amendment

We also have the Obscenity and Pornography – 1st Amendment

Learn More About Police, The Government Officials and You….

$$ Retaliatory Arrests and Prosecution $$

Anti-SLAPP Law in California

Freedom of Assembly – Peaceful Assembly – 1st Amendment Right

Supreme Court sets higher bar for prosecuting threats under First Amendment 2023 SCOTUS

We also have the Brayshaw v. City of Tallahassee – 1st Amendment – Posting Police Address

We also have the Publius v. Boyer-Vine –1st Amendment – Posting Police Address

We also have the Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida (2018) – 1st Amendment – Retaliatory Police Arrests

We also have the Nieves v. Bartlett (2019) – 1st Amendment – Retaliatory Police Arrests

We also have the Hartman v. Moore (2006) – 1st Amendment – Retaliatory Police Arrests
Retaliatory Prosecution Claims Against Government Officials – 1st Amendment

We also have the Reichle v. Howards (2012) – 1st Amendment – Retaliatory Police Arrests
Retaliatory Prosecution Claims Against Government Officials – 1st Amendment

Freedom of the Press – Flyers, Newspaper, Leaflets, Peaceful Assembly – 1$t Amendment – Learn More Here

Vermont’s Top Court Weighs: Are KKK Fliers – 1st Amendment Protected Speech

We also have the Insulting letters to politician’s home are constitutionally protected, unless they are ‘true threats’ – Letters to Politicians Homes – 1st Amendment

We also have the First Amendment Encyclopedia very comprehensive – 1st Amendment

Sanctions and Attorney Fee Recovery for Bad Actors

FAM § 3027.1 – Attorney’s Fees and Sanctions For False Child Abuse Allegations – Family Code 3027.1 – Click Here

FAM § 271 – Awarding Attorney Fees– Family Code 271 Family Court Sanction Click Here

Awarding Discovery Based Sanctions in Family Law Cases – Click Here

FAM § 2030 – Bringing Fairness & Fee Recovery – Click Here

Zamos v. Stroud – District Attorney Liable for Bad Faith Action – Click Here

Malicious Use of Vexatious Litigant – Vexatious Litigant Order Reversed

Mi$Conduct – Pro$ecutorial Mi$Conduct Prosecutor$

Attorney Rule$ of Engagement – Government (A.K.A. THE PRO$UCTOR) and Public/Private Attorney

What is a Fiduciary Duty; Breach of Fiduciary Duty

The Attorney’s Sworn Oath

Malicious Prosecution / Prosecutorial Misconduct – Know What it is!

New Supreme Court Ruling – makes it easier to sue police

Possible courses of action Prosecutorial Misconduct

Misconduct by Judges & Prosecutor – Rules of Professional Conduct

Functions and Duties of the Prosecutor – Prosecution Conduct

Standards on Prosecutorial Investigations – Prosecutorial Investigations

Information On Prosecutorial Discretion

Why Judges, District Attorneys or Attorneys Must Sometimes Recuse Themselves

Fighting Discovery Abuse in Litigation – Forensic & Investigative Accounting – Click Here

Criminal Motions § 1:9 – Motion for Recusal of Prosecutor

Pen. Code, § 1424 – Recusal of Prosecutor

Removing Corrupt Judges, Prosecutors, Jurors and other Individuals & Fake Evidence from Your Case

National District Attorneys Association puts out its standards
National Prosecution Standards – NDD can be found here

The Ethical Obligations of Prosecutors in Cases Involving Postconviction Claims of Innocence

ABA – Functions and Duties of the Prosecutor – Prosecution Conduct

Prosecutor’s Duty Duty to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence Fordham Law Review PDF

Chapter 14 Disclosure of Exculpatory and Impeachment Information PDF

Mi$Conduct – Judicial Mi$Conduct Judge$

Prosecution Of Judges For Corrupt Practice$

Code of Conduct for United States Judge$

Disqualification of a Judge for Prejudice

Judicial Immunity from Civil and Criminal Liability

Recusal of Judge – CCP § 170.1 – Removal a Judge – How to Remove a Judge

l292 Disqualification of Judicial Officer – C.C.P. 170.6 Form

How to File a Complaint Against a Judge in California?

Commission on Judicial Performance – Judge Complaint Online Form

Why Judges, District Attorneys or Attorneys Must Sometimes Recuse Themselves

Removing Corrupt Judges, Prosecutors, Jurors and other Individuals & Fake Evidence from Your Case

DUE PROCESS READS>>>>>>

Due Process vs Substantive Due Process learn more HERE

Understanding Due Process – This clause caused over 200 overturns in just DNA alone Click Here

Mathews v. Eldridge – Due Process – 5th, & 14th Amendment

Mathews Test – 3 Part Test– Amdt5.4.5.4.2 Mathews Test

“Unfriending” Evidence – 5th Amendment

At the Intersection of Technology and Law

We also have the Introducing TEXT & EMAIL Digital Evidence in California Courts – 1st Amendment
so if you are interested in learning about Introducing Digital Evidence in California State Courts
click here for SCOTUS rulings

Right to Travel freely – When the Government Obstructs Your Movement – 14th Amendment & 5th Amendment

What is Probable Cause? and.. How is Probable Cause Established?

Misuse of the Warrant System – California Penal Code § 170 – Crimes Against Public Justice – 4th, 5th, & 14th Amendment

What Is Traversing a Warrant (a Franks Motion)?

Dwayne Furlow v. Jon Belmar – Police Warrant – Immunity Fail – 4th, 5th, & 14th Amendment

Obstruction of Justice and Abuse of Process

What Is Considered Obstruction of Justice in California?

Penal Code 135 PC – Destroying or Concealing Evidence

Penal Code 141 PC – Planting or Tampering with Evidence in California

Penal Code 142 PC – Peace Officer Refusing to Arrest or Receive Person Charged with Criminal Offense

Penal Code 182 PC – “Criminal Conspiracy” Laws & Penalties

Penal Code 664 PC – “Attempted Crimes” in California

Penal Code 32 PC – Accessory After the Fact

Penal Code 31 PC – Aiding and Abetting Laws

What is Abuse of Process?

What is a Due Process Violation? – 4th Amendment & 14th Amendment

What’s the Difference between Abuse of Process, Malicious Prosecution and False Arrest?

Defeating Extortion and Abuse of Process in All Their Ugly Disguises

The Use and Abuse of Power by Prosecutors (Justice for All)

ARE PEOPLE LYING ON YOU?
CAN YOU PROVE IT? IF YES…. THEN YOU ARE IN LUCK!

Penal Code 118 PC – California Penalty of “Perjury” Law

Federal Perjury – Definition by Law

Penal Code 132 PC – Offering False Evidence

Penal Code 134 PC – Preparing False Evidence

Penal Code 118.1 PC – Police Officer$ Filing False Report$

Spencer v. Peters– Police Fabrication of Evidence – 14th Amendment

Penal Code 148.5 PC – Making a False Police Report in California

Penal Code 115 PC – Filing a False Document in California

Misconduct by Government Know Your Rights Click Here

Under 42 U.S.C. $ection 1983 – Recoverable Damage$

42 U.S. Code § 1983 – Civil Action for Deprivation of Right$

18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of Right$ Under Color of Law

18 U.S. Code § 241 – Conspiracy against Right$

Section 1983 Lawsuit – How to Bring a Civil Rights Claim

Suing for Misconduct – Know More of Your Right$

Police Misconduct in California – How to Bring a Lawsuit

How to File a complaint of Police Misconduct? (Tort Claim Forms here as well)

Deprivation of Rights – Under Color of the Law

What is Sua Sponte and How is it Used in a California Court?

Removing Corrupt Judges, Prosecutors, Jurors
and other Individuals & Fake Evidence from Your Case

Anti-SLAPP Law in California

Freedom of Assembly – Peaceful Assembly – 1st Amendment Right

How to Recover “Punitive Damages” in a California Personal Injury Case

Pro Se Forms and Forms Information(Tort Claim Forms here as well)

What is Tort?

Tort Claims Form
File Government Claim for Eligible Compensation

Complete and submit the Government Claim Form, including the required $25 filing fee or Fee Waiver Request, and supporting documents, to the GCP.

See Information Guides and Resources below for more information.

Tort Claims – Claim for Damage, Injury, or Death (see below)

Federal – Federal SF-95 Tort Claim Form Tort Claim online here or download it here or here from us

California – California Tort Claims Act – California Tort Claim Form Here or here from us

Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights (Non-Prisoner Complaint) and also UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT PDF

Taken from the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Forms source

WRITS and WRIT Types in the United States

How do I submit a request for information?

Templates for Sample Requests

or from us Download Word document | or from us Download PDF

The First Amendment Coalition also has some useful information to help explain the PRA process.

Sample Letter | SB 1421 & SB 16 Records

Download Word document | Download PDF

Appealing/Contesting Case/Order/Judgment/Charge/ Suppressing Evidence

First Things First: What Can Be Appealed and What it Takes to Get Started – Click Here

Options to Appealing– Fighting A Judgment Without Filing An Appeal Settlement Or Mediation

Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1008 Motion to Reconsider

Penal Code 1385 – Dismissal of the Action for Want of Prosecution or Otherwise

Penal Code 1538.5 – Motion To Suppress Evidence in a California Criminal Case

CACI No. 1501 – Wrongful Use of Civil Proceedings

Penal Code “995 Motions” in California – Motion to Dismiss

WIC § 700.1 – If Court Grants Motion to Suppress as Evidence

Suppression Of Exculpatory Evidence / Presentation Of False Or Misleading Evidence – Click Here

Notice of Appeal — Felony (Defendant) (CR-120) 1237, 1237.5, 1538.5(m) – Click Here

California Motions in Limine – What is a Motion in Limine?

Petition for a Writ of Mandate or Writ of Mandamus (learn more…)

PC 1385 – Dismissal of the Action for Want of Prosecution or Otherwise

Retrieving Evidence / Internal Investigation Case

Conviction Integrity Unit (“CIU”) of the Orange County District Attorney OCDA – Click Here

Fighting Discovery Abuse in Litigation – Forensic & Investigative Accounting – Click Here

Orange County / LA County Data, BodyCam, Police Report, Incident Reports,
and all other available known requests for data below:

SEARCH SB-1421 SB-16 Incidents of LA County, Oakland

California Senate Bill 16 (SB 16) – 2023-2024 – Peace officers: Release of Records

APPLICATION TO EXAMINE LOCAL ARREST RECORD UNDER CPC 13321 Click Here

Learn About Policy 814: Discovery Requests OCDA Office – Click Here

Request for Proof In-Custody Form Click Here

Request for Clearance Letter Form Click Here

Application to Obtain Copy of State Summary of Criminal HistoryForm Click Here

Request Authorization Form Release of Case Information – Click Here

Texts / Emails AS EVIDENCE: Authenticating Texts for California Courts

Can I Use Text Messages in My California Divorce?

Two-Steps And Voila: How To Authenticate Text Messages

How Your Texts Can Be Used As Evidence?

California Supreme Court Rules:
Text Messages Sent on Private Government Employees Lines
Subject to Open Records Requests

case law: City of San Jose v. Superior Court – Releasing Private Text/Phone Records of Government Employees

Public Records Practices After the San Jose Decision

The Decision Briefing Merits After the San Jose Decision

Rules of Admissibility – Evidence Admissibility

Confrontation Clause – Sixth Amendment

Exceptions To The Hearsay Rule – Confronting Evidence

Prosecutor’s Obligation to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence

Successful Brady/Napue Cases – Suppression of Evidence

Cases Remanded or Hearing Granted Based on Brady/Napue Claims

Unsuccessful But Instructive Brady/Napue Cases

ABA – Functions and Duties of the Prosecutor – Prosecution Conduct

Frivolous, Meritless or Malicious Prosecution – fiduciary duty

Section 832.7 – Peace officer or custodial officer personnel records

Senate Bill No. 1421 – California Public Records Act

Assembly Bill 748 Makes Video Evidence Captured by Police Agencies Subject to Disclosure as Public Records

SB 2, Creating Police Decertification Process and Expanding Civil Liability Exposure

The Right To Know: How To Fulfill The Public’s Right Of Access To Police Records

How Access to California Police Records

Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department SB-1421 Records

SB1421 – Form Access to California Police Records

California Statewide CPRA Requests Submit a CPRA Request

Electronic Audio Recording Request of OC Court Hearings

CPRA Public Records Act Data Request – Click Here

Here is the Public Records Service Act Portal for all of CALIFORNIA Click Here

Police BodyCam Footage Release

Cleaning Up Your Record

Tossing Out an Inferior Judgement – When the Judge Steps on Due Process – California Constitution Article VI – Judicial Section 13

Penal Code 851.8 PC – Certificate of Factual Innocence in California

Petition to Seal and Destroy Adult Arrest Records – Download the PC 851.8 BCIA 8270 Form Here

SB 393: The Consumer Arrest Record Equity Act – 851.87 – 851.92 & 1000.4 – 11105 – CARE ACT

Expungement California – How to Clear Criminal Records Under Penal Code 1203.4 PC

How to Vacate a Criminal Conviction in California – Penal Code 1473.7 PC

Seal & Destroy a Criminal Record

Cleaning Up Your Criminal Record in California (focus OC County)

Governor Pardons –What Does A Governor’s Pardon Do

How to Get a Sentence Commuted (Executive Clemency) in California

How to Reduce a Felony to a Misdemeanor – Penal Code 17b PC Motion

PARENT CASE LAW

RELATIONSHIP WITH YOUR CHILDREN &
YOUR CONSTITUIONAL RIGHT$ + RULING$

YOU CANNOT GET BACK TIME BUT YOU CAN HIT THOSE IMMORAL NON CIVIC MINDED PUNKS WHERE THEY WILL FEEL YOU = THEIR BANK

Family Law Appeal – Learn about appealing a Family Court Decision Here

9.3 Section 1983 Claim Against Defendant as (Individuals) — 14th Amendment this CODE PROTECT$ all US CITIZEN$

Amdt5.4.5.6.2 – Parental and Children’s Rights“> – 5th Amendment this CODE PROTECT$ all US CITIZEN$

9.32 – Interference with Parent / Child Relationship – 14th Amendment this CODE PROTECT$ all US CITIZEN$

California Civil Code Section 52.1
Interference with exercise or enjoyment of individual rights

Parent’s Rights & Children’s Bill of Rights
SCOTUS RULINGS FOR YOUR PARENT RIGHTS

SEARCH of our site for all articles relating for PARENTS RIGHTS Help!

Child’s Best Interest in Custody Cases

Are You From Out of State (California)? FL-105 GC-120(A)
Declaration Under Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA)

Learn More:Family Law Appeal

Necessity Defense in Criminal Cases

Can You Transfer Your Case to Another County or State With Family Law? – Challenges to Jurisdiction

Venue in Family Law Proceedings

GRANDPARENT CASE LAW

Do Grandparents Have Visitation Rights? If there is an Established Relationship then Yes

Third “PRESUMED PARENT” Family Code 7612(C) – Requires Established Relationship Required

Cal State Bar PDF to read about Three Parent Law –
The State Bar of California family law news issue4 2017 vol. 39, no. 4.pdf

Distinguishing Request for Custody from Request for Visitation

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) – Grandparents – 14th Amendment

S.F. Human Servs. Agency v. Christine C. (In re Caden C.)

9.32 Particular Rights – Fourteenth Amendment – Interference with Parent / Child Relationship

Child’s Best Interest in Custody Cases

When is a Joinder in a Family Law Case Appropriate? – Reason for Joinder

Joinder In Family Law Cases – CRC Rule 5.24

GrandParents Rights To Visit
Family Law Packet OC Resource Center
Family Law Packet SB Resource Center

Motion to vacate an adverse judgment

Mandatory Joinder vs Permissive Joinder – Compulsory vs Dismissive Joinder

When is a Joinder in a Family Law Case Appropriate?

Kyle O. v. Donald R. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 848

Punsly v. Ho (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1099

Zauseta v. Zauseta (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1242

S.F. Human Servs. Agency v. Christine C. (In re Caden C.)

Ian J. v. Peter M

Family Treatment Court Best Practice Standards

Download Here this Recommended Citation

Epic Criminal / Civil Right$ SCOTUS Help – Click Here

Epic Parents SCOTUS Ruling – Parental Right$ Help – Click Here

Judge’s & Prosecutor’s Jurisdiction– SCOTUS RULINGS on

Prosecutional Misconduct – SCOTUS Rulings re: Prosecutors

Please take time to learn new UPCOMING

The PROPOSED Parental Rights Amendment
to the US CONSTITUTION Click Here to visit their site

The proposed Parental Rights Amendment will specifically add parental rights in the text of the U.S. Constitution, protecting these rights for both current and future generations.

The Parental Rights Amendment is currently in the U.S. Senate, and is being introduced in the U.S. House.

Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department SB-1421 Records

The Truth News — Fri, 29 Dec 2023 09:36:07 +0000

Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department SB-1421 Records

Effective January 1, 2019, Senate Bill 1421 (SB 1421) amended Penal Code Section 832.7 which generally made all peace officer personnel records and information confidential and exempt from disclosure, except by motion in a criminal, civil, or administrative action. SB 1421 created certain exceptions from general confidentiality requirements for the following categories of peace officer personnel and police investigatory records.

Likewise, effective on January 1, 2022, Senate Bill 16 (SB 16) further amended Penal Code Section 832.7, thereby creating additional exemptions from general requirements for additional categories of peace officer personnel and police investigatory records.

The following categories are the exceptions:

(A) records relating to the report, investigation, or findings of (i) an incident regarding an officer-involved shooting; or (ii) an incident involving the use of force by an officer resulting in death or great bodily injury;

(B) records relating to an incident involving a sustained finding of sexual assault by an officer involving a member of the public;

(C) records relating to an incident involving a sustained finding of dishonesty by an officer directly related to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime or an investigation of misconduct by another officer;

(D) records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency where a peace officer engaged in conduct related to prejudice or discrimination against a person on the basis of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status; and

(E) records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency where the peace officer made an unlawful arrest or conducted an unlawful search.

Pursuant to Penal Code Section 832.7 (Pen. Code § 832.7(b)(1)(A)-(E)) and the California Public Records Act (Cal. Govt. Code section 7920.000, et seq., or the “CPRA”) these records are now available for public review.

This web page contains documents disclosable under SB 1421 and SB 16 which the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department has previously released to individuals or organizations upon request to the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. The Department will continue to upload records disclosed, pursuant to the CPRA, SB 1421 and SB 16. The contents on this web page will be updated periodically. If you have questions, you may contact Risk Management Bureau, PRA Unit at (323) 890-5050, Monday through Friday, 7am – 4pm (absent holidays) or by email at DiscoveryunitPRArequests@lasd.org.

If you have questions, you may contact Risk Management Bureau’s, Discovery Unit at (323) 890-5000.

Search all SB-1421 / SB-16 Published Incidents

source

Governor Signs SB 1421 and AB 748, Dramatically Increasing Public Access to Peace Officer Personnel Records

Effective January 1, 2019, SB 1421 amends Government Code Section 832.7 to generally require disclosure of records and information relating to the following types of incidents in response to a request under the CPRA:

Records relating to the report, investigation, or findings of an incident involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer.
Records relating to the report, investigation or findings of an incident in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person results in death or great bodily injury.
Records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding was made by any law enforcement agency or oversight agency that a peace officer or custodial officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public. “Sexual assault” is defined for the purposes of section 832.7 as the commission or attempted initiation of a sexual act with a member of the public by means of force, threat, coercion, extortion, offer of leniency or any other official favor, or under the color of authority. The propositioning for or commission of any sexual act while on duty is considered a sexual assault.
Records relating to an incident in which a sustained finding of dishonesty by a peace officer or custodial officer directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or directly relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, another peace officer or custodial officer, including but not limited to, any sustained finding of perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction of evidence or falsifying or concealing of evidence.

More access also below

Section 832.7 – Peace officer or custodial officer personnel records

Senate Bill No. 1421 – California Public Records Act

Assembly Bill 748 Makes Video Evidence Captured by Police Agencies Subject to Disclosure as Public Records

SB 2, Creating Police Decertification Process and Expanding Civil Liability Exposure

California Senate Bill 16 (SB 16) – 2023-2024 – Peace officers: Release of Records

The Right To Know: How To Fulfill The Public’s Right Of Access To Police Records

PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST CONTACTS for Los Angeles County (click here for media policy)

How Access to California Police Records

Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department SB-1421 Records

Obtaining a Report from LASD Records (You, 3rd party or consel can obtain)

SEARCH SB-1421 SB-16 Incidents of LA County, Oakland

SB1421 – Form Access to California Police Records

California Statewide CPRA Requests Submit a CPRA Request

How do I submit a request for information?

from the ACLU we have 2 types of SB 1421 Templates for Sample Requests

or from us Download Word document | or from us Download PDF

We also have more robust sample letters below:

Sample Letter | SB 1421 & SB 16 Records

Download Word document | Download PDF

Sample Letter | Police Recordings

Download Word document | Download PDF

The CPRA is now located at Government Code sections 7920.000-7931.000
The First Amendment Coalition also has some useful information to help explain the PRA process.

To Learn More…. Read MORE Below and click the links Below

Abuse & Neglect – The Mandated Reporters (Police, D.A & Medical & the Bad Actors)

Mandated Reporter Laws – Nurses, District Attorney’s, and Police should listen up
If You Would Like to Learn More About: The California Mandated Reporting LawClick Here

To Read the Penal Code § 11164-11166 – Child Abuse or Neglect Reporting Act – California Penal Code 11164-11166Article 2.5. (CANRA) Click Here

Mandated Reporter formMandated ReporterFORM SS 8572.pdf – The Child Abuse

ALL POLICE CHIEFS, SHERIFFS AND COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENTS INFO BULLETIN:
Click Here Officers and DA’s for (Procedure to Follow)

It Only Takes a Minute to Make a Difference in the Life of a Child learn more below

You can learn more here California Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Law its a PDF file

Learn More About True Threats Here below….

We also have the The Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) – 1st Amendment

CURRENT TEST = We also have the The ‘Brandenburg test’ for incitement to violence – 1st Amendment

We also have the The Incitement to Imminent Lawless Action Test– 1st Amendment

We also have the True Threats – Virginia v. Black is most comprehensive Supreme Court definition – 1st Amendment

We also have the Watts v. United States – True Threat Test – 1st Amendment

We also have the Clear and Present Danger Test – 1st Amendment

We also have the Gravity of the Evil Test – 1st Amendment

We also have the Elonis v. United States (2015) – Threats – 1st Amendment

Learn More About What is Obscene…. be careful about education it may enlighten you

We also have the Miller v. California – 3 Prong Obscenity Test (Miller Test) – 1st Amendment

We also have the Obscenity and Pornography – 1st Amendment

Learn More About Police, The Government Officials and You….

$$ Retaliatory Arrests and Prosecution $$

Anti-SLAPP Law in California

Freedom of Assembly – Peaceful Assembly – 1st Amendment Right

Supreme Court sets higher bar for prosecuting threats under First Amendment 2023 SCOTUS

We also have the Brayshaw v. City of Tallahassee – 1st Amendment – Posting Police Address

We also have the Publius v. Boyer-Vine –1st Amendment – Posting Police Address

We also have the Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida (2018) – 1st Amendment – Retaliatory Police Arrests

We also have the Nieves v. Bartlett (2019) – 1st Amendment – Retaliatory Police Arrests

We also have the Hartman v. Moore (2006) – 1st Amendment – Retaliatory Police Arrests
Retaliatory Prosecution Claims Against Government Officials – 1st Amendment

We also have the Reichle v. Howards (2012) – 1st Amendment – Retaliatory Police Arrests
Retaliatory Prosecution Claims Against Government Officials – 1st Amendment

Freedom of the Press – Flyers, Newspaper, Leaflets, Peaceful Assembly – 1$t Amendment – Learn More Here

Vermont’s Top Court Weighs: Are KKK Fliers – 1st Amendment Protected Speech

We also have the Insulting letters to politician’s home are constitutionally protected, unless they are ‘true threats’ – Letters to Politicians Homes – 1st Amendment

We also have the First Amendment Encyclopedia very comprehensive – 1st Amendment

Sanctions and Attorney Fee Recovery for Bad Actors

FAM § 3027.1 – Attorney’s Fees and Sanctions For False Child Abuse Allegations – Family Code 3027.1 – Click Here

FAM § 271 – Awarding Attorney Fees– Family Code 271 Family Court Sanction Click Here

Awarding Discovery Based Sanctions in Family Law Cases – Click Here

FAM § 2030 – Bringing Fairness & Fee Recovery – Click Here

Zamos v. Stroud – District Attorney Liable for Bad Faith Action – Click Here

Malicious Use of Vexatious Litigant – Vexatious Litigant Order Reversed

Mi$Conduct – Pro$ecutorial Mi$Conduct Prosecutor$

Attorney Rule$ of Engagement – Government (A.K.A. THE PRO$UCTOR) and Public/Private Attorney

What is a Fiduciary Duty; Breach of Fiduciary Duty

The Attorney’s Sworn Oath

Malicious Prosecution / Prosecutorial Misconduct – Know What it is!

New Supreme Court Ruling – makes it easier to sue police

Possible courses of action Prosecutorial Misconduct

Misconduct by Judges & Prosecutor – Rules of Professional Conduct

Functions and Duties of the Prosecutor – Prosecution Conduct

Standards on Prosecutorial Investigations – Prosecutorial Investigations

Information On Prosecutorial Discretion

Why Judges, District Attorneys or Attorneys Must Sometimes Recuse Themselves

Fighting Discovery Abuse in Litigation – Forensic & Investigative Accounting – Click Here

Criminal Motions § 1:9 – Motion for Recusal of Prosecutor

Pen. Code, § 1424 – Recusal of Prosecutor

Removing Corrupt Judges, Prosecutors, Jurors and other Individuals & Fake Evidence from Your Case

National District Attorneys Association puts out its standards
National Prosecution Standards – NDD can be found here

The Ethical Obligations of Prosecutors in Cases Involving Postconviction Claims of Innocence

ABA – Functions and Duties of the Prosecutor – Prosecution Conduct

Prosecutor’s Duty Duty to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence Fordham Law Review PDF

Chapter 14 Disclosure of Exculpatory and Impeachment Information PDF

Mi$Conduct – Judicial Mi$Conduct Judge$

Prosecution Of Judges For Corrupt Practice$

Code of Conduct for United States Judge$

Disqualification of a Judge for Prejudice

Judicial Immunity from Civil and Criminal Liability

Recusal of Judge – CCP § 170.1 – Removal a Judge – How to Remove a Judge

l292 Disqualification of Judicial Officer – C.C.P. 170.6 Form

How to File a Complaint Against a Judge in California?

Commission on Judicial Performance – Judge Complaint Online Form

Why Judges, District Attorneys or Attorneys Must Sometimes Recuse Themselves

Removing Corrupt Judges, Prosecutors, Jurors and other Individuals & Fake Evidence from Your Case

DUE PROCESS READS>>>>>>

Due Process vs Substantive Due Process learn more HERE

Understanding Due Process – This clause caused over 200 overturns in just DNA alone Click Here

Mathews v. Eldridge – Due Process – 5th, & 14th Amendment

Mathews Test – 3 Part Test– Amdt5.4.5.4.2 Mathews Test

“Unfriending” Evidence – 5th Amendment

At the Intersection of Technology and Law

We also have the Introducing TEXT & EMAIL Digital Evidence in California Courts – 1st Amendment
so if you are interested in learning about Introducing Digital Evidence in California State Courts
click here for SCOTUS rulings

Right to Travel freely – When the Government Obstructs Your Movement – 14th Amendment & 5th Amendment

What is Probable Cause? and.. How is Probable Cause Established?

Misuse of the Warrant System – California Penal Code § 170 – Crimes Against Public Justice – 4th, 5th, & 14th Amendment

What Is Traversing a Warrant (a Franks Motion)?

Dwayne Furlow v. Jon Belmar – Police Warrant – Immunity Fail – 4th, 5th, & 14th Amendment

Obstruction of Justice and Abuse of Process

What Is Considered Obstruction of Justice in California?

Penal Code 135 PC – Destroying or Concealing Evidence

Penal Code 141 PC – Planting or Tampering with Evidence in California

Penal Code 142 PC – Peace Officer Refusing to Arrest or Receive Person Charged with Criminal Offense

Penal Code 182 PC – “Criminal Conspiracy” Laws & Penalties

Penal Code 664 PC – “Attempted Crimes” in California

Penal Code 32 PC – Accessory After the Fact

Penal Code 31 PC – Aiding and Abetting Laws

What is Abuse of Process?

What is a Due Process Violation? – 4th Amendment & 14th Amendment

What’s the Difference between Abuse of Process, Malicious Prosecution and False Arrest?

Defeating Extortion and Abuse of Process in All Their Ugly Disguises

The Use and Abuse of Power by Prosecutors (Justice for All)

ARE PEOPLE LYING ON YOU?
CAN YOU PROVE IT? IF YES…. THEN YOU ARE IN LUCK!

Penal Code 118 PC – California Penalty of “Perjury” Law

Federal Perjury – Definition by Law

Penal Code 132 PC – Offering False Evidence

Penal Code 134 PC – Preparing False Evidence

Penal Code 118.1 PC – Police Officer$ Filing False Report$

Spencer v. Peters– Police Fabrication of Evidence – 14th Amendment

Penal Code 148.5 PC – Making a False Police Report in California

Penal Code 115 PC – Filing a False Document in California

Misconduct by Government Know Your Rights Click Here

Under 42 U.S.C. $ection 1983 – Recoverable Damage$

42 U.S. Code § 1983 – Civil Action for Deprivation of Right$

18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of Right$ Under Color of Law

18 U.S. Code § 241 – Conspiracy against Right$

Section 1983 Lawsuit – How to Bring a Civil Rights Claim

Suing for Misconduct – Know More of Your Right$

Police Misconduct in California – How to Bring a Lawsuit

How to File a complaint of Police Misconduct? (Tort Claim Forms here as well)

Deprivation of Rights – Under Color of the Law

What is Sua Sponte and How is it Used in a California Court?

Removing Corrupt Judges, Prosecutors, Jurors
and other Individuals & Fake Evidence from Your Case

Anti-SLAPP Law in California

Freedom of Assembly – Peaceful Assembly – 1st Amendment Right

How to Recover “Punitive Damages” in a California Personal Injury Case

Pro Se Forms and Forms Information(Tort Claim Forms here as well)

What is Tort?

Tort Claims Form
File Government Claim for Eligible Compensation

Complete and submit the Government Claim Form, including the required $25 filing fee or Fee Waiver Request, and supporting documents, to the GCP.

See Information Guides and Resources below for more information.

Tort Claims – Claim for Damage, Injury, or Death (see below)

Federal – Federal SF-95 Tort Claim Form Tort Claim online here or download it here or here from us

California – California Tort Claims Act – California Tort Claim Form Here or here from us

Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights (Non-Prisoner Complaint) and also UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT PDF

Taken from the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Forms source

WRITS and WRIT Types in the United States

How do I submit a request for information?

Templates for Sample Requests

or from us Download Word document | or from us Download PDF

The First Amendment Coalition also has some useful information to help explain the PRA process.

Sample Letter | SB 1421 & SB 16 Records

Download Word document | Download PDF

Appealing/Contesting Case/Order/Judgment/Charge/ Suppressing Evidence

First Things First: What Can Be Appealed and What it Takes to Get Started – Click Here

Options to Appealing– Fighting A Judgment Without Filing An Appeal Settlement Or Mediation

Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1008 Motion to Reconsider

Penal Code 1385 – Dismissal of the Action for Want of Prosecution or Otherwise

Penal Code 1538.5 – Motion To Suppress Evidence in a California Criminal Case

CACI No. 1501 – Wrongful Use of Civil Proceedings

Penal Code “995 Motions” in California – Motion to Dismiss

WIC § 700.1 – If Court Grants Motion to Suppress as Evidence

Suppression Of Exculpatory Evidence / Presentation Of False Or Misleading Evidence – Click Here

Notice of Appeal — Felony (Defendant) (CR-120) 1237, 1237.5, 1538.5(m) – Click Here

California Motions in Limine – What is a Motion in Limine?

Petition for a Writ of Mandate or Writ of Mandamus (learn more…)

PC 1385 – Dismissal of the Action for Want of Prosecution or Otherwise

Retrieving Evidence / Internal Investigation Case

Conviction Integrity Unit (“CIU”) of the Orange County District Attorney OCDA – Click Here

Fighting Discovery Abuse in Litigation – Forensic & Investigative Accounting – Click Here

Orange County / LA County Data, BodyCam, Police Report, Incident Reports,
and all other available known requests for data below:

SEARCH SB-1421 SB-16 Incidents of LA County, Oakland

California Senate Bill 16 (SB 16) – 2023-2024 – Peace officers: Release of Records

APPLICATION TO EXAMINE LOCAL ARREST RECORD UNDER CPC 13321 Click Here

Learn About Policy 814: Discovery Requests OCDA Office – Click Here

Request for Proof In-Custody Form Click Here

Request for Clearance Letter Form Click Here

Application to Obtain Copy of State Summary of Criminal HistoryForm Click Here

Request Authorization Form Release of Case Information – Click Here

Texts / Emails AS EVIDENCE: Authenticating Texts for California Courts

Can I Use Text Messages in My California Divorce?

Two-Steps And Voila: How To Authenticate Text Messages

How Your Texts Can Be Used As Evidence?

California Supreme Court Rules:
Text Messages Sent on Private Government Employees Lines
Subject to Open Records Requests

case law: City of San Jose v. Superior Court – Releasing Private Text/Phone Records of Government Employees

Public Records Practices After the San Jose Decision

The Decision Briefing Merits After the San Jose Decision

Rules of Admissibility – Evidence Admissibility

Confrontation Clause – Sixth Amendment

Exceptions To The Hearsay Rule – Confronting Evidence

Prosecutor’s Obligation to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence

Successful Brady/Napue Cases – Suppression of Evidence

Cases Remanded or Hearing Granted Based on Brady/Napue Claims

Unsuccessful But Instructive Brady/Napue Cases

ABA – Functions and Duties of the Prosecutor – Prosecution Conduct

Frivolous, Meritless or Malicious Prosecution – fiduciary duty

Section 832.7 – Peace officer or custodial officer personnel records

Senate Bill No. 1421 – California Public Records Act

Assembly Bill 748 Makes Video Evidence Captured by Police Agencies Subject to Disclosure as Public Records

SB 2, Creating Police Decertification Process and Expanding Civil Liability Exposure

The Right To Know: How To Fulfill The Public’s Right Of Access To Police Records

How Access to California Police Records

Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department SB-1421 Records

SB1421 – Form Access to California Police Records

California Statewide CPRA Requests Submit a CPRA Request

Electronic Audio Recording Request of OC Court Hearings

CPRA Public Records Act Data Request – Click Here

Here is the Public Records Service Act Portal for all of CALIFORNIA Click Here

Police BodyCam Footage Release

Cleaning Up Your Record

Tossing Out an Inferior Judgement – When the Judge Steps on Due Process – California Constitution Article VI – Judicial Section 13

Penal Code 851.8 PC – Certificate of Factual Innocence in California

Petition to Seal and Destroy Adult Arrest Records – Download the PC 851.8 BCIA 8270 Form Here

SB 393: The Consumer Arrest Record Equity Act – 851.87 – 851.92 & 1000.4 – 11105 – CARE ACT

Expungement California – How to Clear Criminal Records Under Penal Code 1203.4 PC

How to Vacate a Criminal Conviction in California – Penal Code 1473.7 PC

Seal & Destroy a Criminal Record

Cleaning Up Your Criminal Record in California (focus OC County)

Governor Pardons –What Does A Governor’s Pardon Do

How to Get a Sentence Commuted (Executive Clemency) in California

How to Reduce a Felony to a Misdemeanor – Penal Code 17b PC Motion

PARENT CASE LAW

RELATIONSHIP WITH YOUR CHILDREN &
YOUR CONSTITUIONAL RIGHT$ + RULING$

YOU CANNOT GET BACK TIME BUT YOU CAN HIT THOSE IMMORAL NON CIVIC MINDED PUNKS WHERE THEY WILL FEEL YOU = THEIR BANK

Family Law Appeal – Learn about appealing a Family Court Decision Here

9.3 Section 1983 Claim Against Defendant as (Individuals) — 14th Amendment this CODE PROTECT$ all US CITIZEN$

Amdt5.4.5.6.2 – Parental and Children’s Rights“> – 5th Amendment this CODE PROTECT$ all US CITIZEN$

9.32 – Interference with Parent / Child Relationship – 14th Amendment this CODE PROTECT$ all US CITIZEN$

California Civil Code Section 52.1
Interference with exercise or enjoyment of individual rights

Parent’s Rights & Children’s Bill of Rights
SCOTUS RULINGS FOR YOUR PARENT RIGHTS

SEARCH of our site for all articles relating for PARENTS RIGHTS Help!

Child’s Best Interest in Custody Cases

Are You From Out of State (California)? FL-105 GC-120(A)
Declaration Under Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA)

Learn More:Family Law Appeal

Necessity Defense in Criminal Cases

Can You Transfer Your Case to Another County or State With Family Law? – Challenges to Jurisdiction

Venue in Family Law Proceedings

GRANDPARENT CASE LAW

Do Grandparents Have Visitation Rights? If there is an Established Relationship then Yes

Third “PRESUMED PARENT” Family Code 7612(C) – Requires Established Relationship Required

Cal State Bar PDF to read about Three Parent Law –
The State Bar of California family law news issue4 2017 vol. 39, no. 4.pdf

Distinguishing Request for Custody from Request for Visitation

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) – Grandparents – 14th Amendment

S.F. Human Servs. Agency v. Christine C. (In re Caden C.)

9.32 Particular Rights – Fourteenth Amendment – Interference with Parent / Child Relationship

Child’s Best Interest in Custody Cases

When is a Joinder in a Family Law Case Appropriate? – Reason for Joinder

Joinder In Family Law Cases – CRC Rule 5.24

GrandParents Rights To Visit
Family Law Packet OC Resource Center
Family Law Packet SB Resource Center

Motion to vacate an adverse judgment

Mandatory Joinder vs Permissive Joinder – Compulsory vs Dismissive Joinder

When is a Joinder in a Family Law Case Appropriate?

Kyle O. v. Donald R. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 848

Punsly v. Ho (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1099

Zauseta v. Zauseta (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1242

S.F. Human Servs. Agency v. Christine C. (In re Caden C.)

Ian J. v. Peter M

Family Treatment Court Best Practice Standards

Download Here this Recommended Citation

Epic Criminal / Civil Right$ SCOTUS Help – Click Here

Epic Parents SCOTUS Ruling – Parental Right$ Help – Click Here

Judge’s & Prosecutor’s Jurisdiction– SCOTUS RULINGS on

Prosecutional Misconduct – SCOTUS Rulings re: Prosecutors

Please take time to learn new UPCOMING

The PROPOSED Parental Rights Amendment
to the US CONSTITUTION Click Here to visit their site

The proposed Parental Rights Amendment will specifically add parental rights in the text of the U.S. Constitution, protecting these rights for both current and future generations.

The Parental Rights Amendment is currently in the U.S. Senate, and is being introduced in the U.S. House.

Pitchess Motion & the Public Inspection of Police Records

The Truth News — Sat, 09 Dec 2023 09:28:28 +0000

Pitchess Motion & the Public Inspection of Police Records

A Pitchess motion is where you as the defendant seek to inspect a law enforcement officer’s personnel record for evidence of police misconduct. Defense attorneys typically bring a Pitchess motion when they suspect officers may have acted improperly, such as by filing a false police report or using excessive force.

California Senate Bill 1421 was signed into law in September 2018. This new law makes a Pitchess motion unnecessary for some types of information requests.

Under SB 1421, four types of police records are now open for public inspection. These records pertain to the situations when:

An officer shoots his gun at a person;
An officer uses force against another person and the result is death or great bodily injury;
There is a prior finding that an officer committed a sexual assault; and,
An officer commits a dishonest act (such as perjury or filing a false report).

After Senate Bill 1421, Pitchess motions are still relevant if:

You seek information from an officer’s personnel file; and,
That information is not authorized for inspection under SB 1421.

Examples of information you may seek that is not covered within SB 1421 may include:

Records that show that an officer racially profiled; or,
Records that show that an officer coerced a confession; or
Records show other prejudicial acts or the falsification of evidence/testimony.

In accordance with Pitchess motions procedures and standards, a Pitchess motion must include:

A description of the type of records or information you seek; and,
A showing of “good cause” for the records’ release.

If the judge decides that a Pitchess motion shows “good cause” for disclosing an officer’s personnel records, the judge holds a private “in camera” hearing to decide which records are relevant to the case.

1. When can I gain access to police personnel files?

A strong defense to some criminal accusations is to show that a police officer committed misconduct against you. Some forms of misconduct are when officers:

Use excessive force,
Racially profile,
Coerce confessions,
Lie in a police report, and
Plant evidence.

In misconduct cases, police records – in particular an officer’s personnel file – are relevant evidence because they allow you to see if the arresting officer in your case committed some type of misconduct in past cases. A showing of any type of pattern of misconduct would be critical to build an effective defense.

Under California law, you can attempt to obtain information from an officer’s personnel file by either:

Requesting this information pursuant to SB 1421; or,
Filing a Pitchess motion with the court.¹

2. What has been the effect of Senate Bill 1421?

California Senate Bill 1421 does four important things:

Makes certain police records open to public inspection;
Specifies what types of “records” are eligible for release;
Provides instructions on redacting certain information; and,
Prohibits disclosure of information in an officer’s personnel file in other cases.

2.1. Types of records open to public inspection

Under SB 1421, there are four types of personnel records that are open to public inspection. These are:

Records relating to an incident, or investigation, involving a police officer shooting his gun at a person;
A record relating to an incident, or investigation, involving a police officer using force against a person, and the result is death or great bodily injury;
Records relating to an incident in which there was a finding that a police officer engaged in sexual assault; and,
Records relating to an incident where there was a finding that an officer acted dishonestly.²

As to the fourth category of records, dishonest acts may include:

Perjury;
False statements;
Filing false reports;
Destroying evidence;
Falsifying evidence; and,
Tampering with evidence.³

2.2. Specific “records’ that may be released

In the four scenarios above, SB 1421 authorizes the public inspection of “records” found in a police officer’s, or other law enforcement officer’s, personnel file.

According to the Senate Bill, “records” include such items and information as:

Investigative reports;
Photographic, audio and video evidence;
Transcripts or recordings of interviews;
Autopsy reports;
Documents setting forth findings or recommended findings; and,
Copies of disciplinary records.⁴

2.3. Redacting of information

Senate Bill 1421 states that when authorized records are open for inspection, some information must get redacted, or edited, to protect the identity of certain parties and witnesses.

The information that gets redacted includes:

Personal information (for example, addresses, telephone numbers, and names of family members);
Confidential medical or financial information;
Information prohibited by federal law;
Information the disclosure of which would create a danger to an officer’s safety; and,
Information where the public interest served by not disclosing it outweighs the public interest served by disclosing it.⁵

2.4. Disclosure of other records prohibited

Senate Bill 1421 does not provide for the full disclosure of all records within an officer’s personnel file. Public inspection is only available for the four types of records specifically listed in the bill (please see 2.1 above).

The disclosure of any other information from a personnel file is prohibited under the new law, unless allowed under Section 1043 of the Evidence Code.⁶

California Evidence Code 1043 EC applies to information contained within an officer’s personnel file. EC 1043 states that this information is privileged, and thus not obtainable, unless you file – and are successful in bringing – a Pitchess motion.

This means Pitchess motions are still relevant under California law; and, they must get filed to obtain records not authorized under SB 1421.

https://youtu.be/jXd94R7oiVg?si=pNUaTzG0wDugP7L_

SB 1421 authorizes the public inspection of “records” found in a police officer’s personnel file.

3. How do you file a Pitchess motion?

California Evidence Code sections 1043 and 1045 outline the process for filing a Pitchess motion. The process includes three important elements:

Procedural steps for filing the written motion;
A showing of “good cause;” and,
An “in camera” hearing.

3.1. Procedural steps

You file a Pitchess motion before the beginning of your criminal jury trial, typically before the preliminary hearing. It must be in writing.⁷

Under Evidence Code 1043 EC, a Pitchess motion must include:

Identification of the criminal court case, you, the officer(s) whose records are being sought, and the governmental agency that has custody of the records;
A description of the type of records that are being sought;
Proof that you have notified the agency that holds the records of the motion and proof of service; and,
An affidavit showing “good cause” for the disclosure of the records (this is often written and signed by your criminal defense attorney).⁸

3.2. Showing of “good cause”

A showing of “good cause” exists if the affidavit sets forth both:

A specific factual scenario that supports allegations of officer misconduct in your case; and,
Reasons why the misconduct would be material to your defense.⁹

Example: Wendell is arrested after an undercover officer claims that Wendell tried to purchase drugs from him. Wendell files a Pitchess motion, and his “good cause” affidavit asserts that Wendell never tried to buy drugs from the officer, and the officer was simply lying.

The affidavit also explains that any information in the officer’s personnel record that would establish a history of dishonesty and filing false reports would be relevant information for Wendell’s case. The court decides that this affidavit is sufficient to show “good cause” for disclosure of the records under Evidence Code 1043 EC.²⁵

For police misconduct to have “materiality” to the pending litigation, there must be:

A link between the criminal charges in the case and the defense; and,
A showing why the requested information would make a difference to the defense.¹⁰

3.3. “In camera” hearings

If the above procedural requirements are meant, and good cause is shown, then a Pitchess motion moves onto an “in camera” hearing conducted by a judge.

“In camera” means that the hearing is private rather than in open court. The only people that usually attend are:

The officer whose records are being sought; and,
Any other people the officer is willing to have present (usually the custodian of records for the police department).¹¹

During the in camera review hearing, the trial court judge evaluates whether or not the information in the officer’s personnel files is relevant to your defense. Only information that the judge determines is relevant will be disclosed to you. The judge does not serve as a trier of fact and consequently does not decide credibility or weigh the evidence.¹²

Records that cannot be disclosed

There are certain types of information that the judge cannot disclose to you (unless the information is exculpatory, which means suggesting that you are innocent). Records that are off-limits include:

Information about complaints against the officer(s) that occurred more than five (5) years before the alleged police misconduct in your case,
The personal conclusions (as opposed to the disciplinary action) of any other officer investigating a citizen’s complaint against the officer(s), and
Facts that are so remote that disclosing them would have little or no practical benefit.¹³

Recipients of Pitchess materials may not reveal them for other purposes than the case at hand. If there is good cause, the court may issue a protective order to keep the information secret.¹⁴

4. What are the possible outcomes of a Pitchess motion?

There are two possible outcomes to a Pitchess motion. These are that the motion is:

Granted, and information is disclosed; or,
Denied, and information is not disclosed.¹⁵

4.1. Motion granted

If a court grants a Pitchess motion, and the judge finds records relevant to your defense, the records are not typically turned over. Rather, the judge provides you the name and contact information of anyone that previously filed a complaint against the officer.¹⁶

Your attorney then contacts those persons to interview them about the facts and can present them as possible witnesses. However, if the parties are unavailable or not findable, then you can obtain the actual records of an earlier complaint.¹⁷

If the judge orders disclosure of the officer’s personnel records, but the agency that keeps the records refuses to comply with the court’s orders, then the state must dismiss the charges against you.¹⁸

4.2. Motion denied and information not disclosed

If a court denies a Pitchess motion, and you are then convicted of the charges against you, you can appeal the conviction.

In the appeal, you would argue, in part, that your Pitchess motion should not have been denied because you showed “good cause” to gain access to the officer’s personnel file. The appellate court would then determine whether denying the Pitchess motion was an “abuse of discretion.”

If the lower court never conducted an in-camera review on the Pitchess motion, the appellate court can opt to “remand” the case so the lower court can conduct the in-camera hearing. Only when the lower court conducts an in-camera review – and then denies the motion – can an appellate court then reverse the denial.¹⁹

5. Why is it called a Pitchess motion?

Pitchess motions are named after the 1974 California Supreme Court case of Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal. 3d 531.

6. What is a Brady letter?

Prosecutors and police officers may keep a Brady letter (also referred to as a Brady list), which is a list of the names of police with criminal convictions or with past incidents of lying.

Officers placed on a Brady List risk termination or demotion. If they testify in trial, the defense could impeach their credibility.

Additional resources

For more in-depth information, refer to these scholarly articles:

Pitchess v. Brady: The Need for Legislative Reform of California’s Confidentiality Protection for Peace-Officer Personnel Information – McGeorge Law Review.
Reconciling Brady and Pitchess: Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v. Superior Court, and the Future of Brady Lists – San Diego Law Review.
Good Cop, Bad Cop – Anyone’s Guess: A Review of the Pitchess Motion for Criminal Discovery in the State of California – Whittier Law Review.
Reevaluating California’s Pitchess Process in Light of the Police Officer Misconduct Problem – Available at SSRN.
Constructing a Better Estimate of Police Misconduct – PolicyMatters Journal.

Legal References:

1. Pitchess motions were created following the 1974 California Supreme Court case of Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal. 3d 531. See also Brady v. Maryland, (1963) 373 US 83. See also Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v. Superior Court, (2019) 8 Cal. 5th 28. See also People v. McDaniel (2021) 12 Cal. 5th 97.
2. See also California Senate Bill 1421, Section 2, adding Penal Code 832.7(b)(1)(A)-(C) PC.
3. Also see California Senate Bill 1421, Section 2, adding Penal Code 832.7(b)(1)(C) PC.
4. See also California Senate Bill 1421, Section 2, adding Penal Code 832.7(b)(2) PC.
5. Also also California Senate Bill 1421, Section 2, adding Penal Code 832.7(b)(5) PC. See also California Evidence Code 1040(b) EC.
6. See also California Senate Bill 1421, Section 2, adding Penal Code 832.7(g) PC.
7. Also see California Evidence Code section 1043 EC.
8. See same.
9. Also see Giovanni B. v. Superior Court (Court of Appeal, 2007) 152 Cal. App. 4th 312.
10. See same.
11. Also see People v. Woolman (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 652.
12. See also Evidence Code 1045 – 1046 EC. Warrick v Superior Court, (2005) 35 C4th 1011.
13. See same. City of Los Angeles v Superior Court, (2002) 29 C4th 1.
14. See Alford v Superior Court, (2003) 29 C4th 1033.
15. Technically, a third outcome is possible. The court could grant this motion and deny it in part, revealing some information and hiding other information. This assumes there was a request for multiple documents within an officer’s personnel file. For simplicity, this article discusses the two outcomes presented.
16. See also City of Santa Cruz v. Municipal Court (1989) 49 Cal.3d 74.
17. Also see Alvarez v. Superior Court (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1107.
18. See also Dell M. v. Superior Court, In and For Los Angeles County (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 782.
19. People v Memro (1985) 38 C3d 658.
20. source

HOW TO WIN A PITCHESS MOTION — A PREMIER CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY EXPLAINS

Police misconduct can greatly influence what happens in a criminal case. Learn how the best criminal defense attorneys use Pitchess Motions to obtain information about improper police activity.

HOW TO WIN A PITCHESS MOTION

Getting a Pitchess Motion granted by the judge requires your attorney to understand the law and know how to use evidence to support the motion. Award-winning criminal law attorney Aaron Spolin generally fights Pitchess Motions by taking these steps: (1) utilize specific facts to allege officer misconduct and (2) articulate a logical link between the misconduct and the defense we will use.

Prosecutors might keep a “Brady List,” which is a list of the names of police with criminal convictions or past incidents of lying.

Former Prosecutor Aaron Spolin Explains How to Win a Pitchess Motion

Utilize Specific Facts: The best way to win a Pitchess Motion is with specific facts gathered from an independent investigation and through the discovery process. The Pitchess Motion must allege officer misconduct by providing a specific factual scenario establishing a plausible fact-based need for the records. Further, a judge is more likely to grant a Pitchess Motion if the request is narrowly tailored to the potential misconduct or impropriety.
Articulate a Logical Link Between the Misconduct and the Defenses: It is not enough to simply state that we believe the evidence would be helpful to your defense. We must articulate a logical link between the misconduct and the defenses we will use.

For example, if we claim that an officer used excessive force when arresting a defendant who is charged with resisting arrest, we should include the police report as an exhibit to the motion to show that there was an altercation during the arrest. We would not seek records of an officer’s sexual harassment since it has nothing to do with the defense. Instead, we would narrowly tailor the request to obtain evidence of similar past wrongdoings by the officer.

Another example may be where a defendant claims that an officer falsified information or planted evidence. A declaration should be filed with the motion stating exactly what the officer did or what evidence was planted. Allegations under oath that a detective fabricated evidence may rise to the level of misconduct to gain access to the personnel file where the credibility of the officer becomes an important question.

A Pitchess Motion should be filed if there is any indication that an officer acted improperly.

WHAT IS A PITCHESS MOTION?

A Pitchess Motion is a legal document requesting the court to allow the defense to inspect a law enforcement officer’s personnel file for evidence of police misconduct. These motions are typically brought during the pre-trial phase when the defense suspects that an officer may have acted improperly.

In the Pitchess Motion process, California is balancing two interests:

Protecting the privacy of its employees and maintaining secrecy of government information
Complying with mandates of due process and allowing access to records with good cause

Due Process Gives You a Right to This Information

The Constitutional right to due process requires that the prosecution provide the defendant with discovery. Under a court ruling in the case Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), the prosecution must disclose any favorable evidence related to guilt. Discovery includes any evidence related to the case, whether or not the prosecution would ultimately use it for trial.

Some examples of evidence that must be provided to the defendant through the informal discovery process include the following:

Physical evidence obtained in the investigation
Names, addresses, and telephone numbers of witnesses
Written and/or oral statements made by the defendant and any codefendants

Format of Pitchess Motion

A Pitchess Motion must include the following information:

The time and place the motion will be heard
The officer’s name
A description of the information sought
A statement based on reasonable belief that the government has the records or information sought
An affidavit or declaration showing materiality
An affidavit or declaration showing good cause for the disclosure

Good Cause and Materiality

In order to show good cause and materiality, the Pitchess Motion must make a valid claim justifying the discovery of the records being requested. The motion must have a declaration that explains which defense theory will be used and how that theory is tied to the specific facts from the case. It must be shown that the records being sought will aid in this defense.

However, it is important to note that a defendant is not required to disclose their defense strategy to the prosecutor. Thus, these documents can be filed under seal to protect the defendant from disclosing too much to the other side.

What Kind of Evidence Can a Pitchess Motion Be Used For?

Some police records are openly available to the public under California Senate Bill 1421 and do not need to be obtained through Pitchess Motion. For example, an officer’s use of force resulted in great bodily injury or death must be disclosed if requested through the informal discovery process. Also, evidence of dishonest acts by a police officer, such as perjury, must be disclosed. Other records that must be disclosed include when an officer shoots their gun at a person and if there is a prior finding that an officer committed a sexual assault. However, there are narrow exceptions in the records that are available to the public.

Other types of records are protected and cannot be obtained by simply requesting a copy from the police agency. A defendant must file a Pitchess Motion to gain access to other records that might be useful in their defense. Examples include prior complaints and records showing the following:

Use of excessive force
Fabricating probable cause
Racial profiling
Unlawful traffic stops
Planting or tampering with evidence
Sexual harassment
Coercing confessions

Those records may be contained in investigative reports, photographs, audio and video files, transcripts of interviews, autopsy reports, disciplinary records, and other documents setting forth or recommending findings.

PROCESS FOR BRINGING A PITCHESS MOTION

A Pitchess Motion can be brought at any time after a person is charged with a crime, but before trial. It is a pre-trial motion. There is no set time limit for bringing a Pitchess Motion. However, it should be filed as soon as possible in order to give the defendant enough time to litigate the motion and conduct an adequate investigation if the motion is granted and evidence is obtained. It can even be filed before the preliminary hearing.

What Happens If the Motion Is Granted?

If the court decides the Pitchess Motion meets the requirements, it will grant the motion. If granted, the judge will review the records in private in what is called an in-camera hearing. That means the judge will review the records in their chambers with a representative from the police department, but without the defense attorney or District Attorney. If the judge finds anything relevant, it will then be revealed to the defendant.

Further, if the judge finds that some records are relevant, the judge does not turn over actual records to the defense. Instead, the judge will provide the defendant’s attorney with the names and contact information of potential witnesses, including anyone who has made complaints against an officer. This will allow the attorney to contact those people and gather information.

What Happens If the Pitchess Motion is Denied?

All is not lost if the court denies your Pitchess Motion. If the motion was litigated in a California Superior Court, the issue is then preserved for an appeal. You can request that the Court of Appeal review the Superior Court’s actions and decision in deciding the Pitchess Motion. The Court of Appeal reviews a Superior Court’s denial of the motion for an abuse of discretion.

There are several ways to attack an appeal. Your attorney can argue that the Superior Court abused its discretion by denying the motion and withholding records. Also, the Superior Court’s procedures can be challenged. The Court of Appeal will determine if proper procedures were followed, such as whether the court held a hearing on the motion or improperly denied it without an in camera hearing.

HOW A LAWYER MAKES A DIFFERENCE

Police misconduct can result in evidence that is ultimately used against the defendant to get an unfair outcome. source

PITCHESS MOTIONS IN CALIFORNIA

One widespread defense strategy a good attorney might employ when you’re charged with a crime is to seek to discredit the testimony of the law enforcement officer who arrested you. This is an especially relevant strategy when the officer is suspected of misconduct, such as using excessive force or filing a false report.

Simply put, a Pitchess motion is a defendant’s request to inspect a law enforcement officer’s personnel file for evidence of misconduct, often part of the pretrial process when they believe the police officer acted improperly.

A Pitchess motion is a defendant’s request for information from a police officer’s personnel records.

California Senate Bill 1421 was signed into law in 2018, making a Pitchess motion unnecessary for some types of requests for information because they are open for public inspection.

These open public records include situations when police shoot their weapon at someone, use force that results in great bodily injury or death, a finding they committed a sexual assault, or a dishonest act, such as perjury.

However, Pitchess motions are still necessary if the defendant wants information from an officer’s personnel file and the information was not authorized for inspection under SB 1421.

Some examples of information a defendant typically seeks include records where the officer used racial profiling, prejudicial acts, coerced confessions, or falsifying testimony or evidence. A Pitchess motion must describe the type of records or information they seek and show “good cause” to release the records.

Suppose a judge decides that a Pitchess motion shows “good cause” for disclosing a police officer’s personnel records. In that case, the judge holds a private “in-camera” hearing to determine whether the records are relevant to the case.

One of the most effective tools in implementing this strategy is for your attorney to file a Pitchess motion, a specialized discovery motion in California law where the defendant requests access to the law enforcement officer’s personnel records.

WHAT IS THE ORIGIN OF A PITCHESS MOTION?

The Pitchess motion originated from the landmark California case, Pitchess v. Superior Court, in 1974. In this case, Sheriff Peter J. Pitchess challenged the defendant’s request for complaints filed against the deputies involved in his arrest.

The California Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant, holding that defendants have a right to access a law enforcement officer’s personnel records for information that might impugn the officer’s credibility or demonstrate their propensity for violence.

WHEN AND WHY IS THIS MOTION USED?

As noted, the primary purpose of a Pitchess motion is to uncover potential material that can be used to challenge or impeach the credibility of a police officer, especially in cases where the officer’s conduct is directly relevant to the topic at hand.

A Pitchess motion in California is an attempt to impeach the credibility of a police officer.

This is typically based on their past misconduct. For instance, if a defendant alleges that an officer used excessive force or fabricated evidence, a Pitchess motion can be instrumental in obtaining records that may support these claims.

This motion is particularly significant in the context of police misconduct records because it provides a legal avenue for accessing information that is typically considered privileged and confidential.

This includes details about an officer’s history of misconduct complaints, disciplinary actions, and other relevant behavioral patterns. Such information can be crucial in shaping the defense strategy and potentially influencing the trial’s outcome.

WHAT ARE THE CHANGES IN THE LAW?

As noted, as of 2018, Senate Bill 1421 has implemented essential changes in the law that make certain police records available to the public without the need to file a Pitchess motion. The main provisions of SB 1421 apply to records related to:

Officer-Involved Shootings and Use of Force: Records relating to incidents where police fired a weapon at someone or when the officer’s use of force resulted in death or great bodily injury are now available to the public.
Sexual Assault: Records involving sustained findings of sexual assault committed by on-duty law enforcement officers against members of the public are available under this law.
Dishonesty Related to Criminal Investigations: The law also allows access to records where an officer was found dishonest in reporting, investigating, or prosecuting a crime. This includes perjury, false statements, filing false reports, destruction, falsifying, or concealing of evidence.

While SB 1421 broadens access to certain types of law enforcement records, it doesn’t eliminate the need for Pitchess motions.

Examples of police record information not covered by SB 1421 may include incidents involving racism or racial profiling, coerced confessions, etc. If a certain file or piece of information is unavailable under SB 1421, your attorney may still have to file a Pitchess motion to obtain access. Under SB 14 21, records can include the following:

Pictures;
Video and audio evidence;
Transcripts of any interviews;
Recording of any interviews;
Investigation reports;
Disciplinary records;
Documents of recommended findings;
Autopsy reports.

Notably, when authorized records are open for inspection, some information must be redacted or edited to protect certain people, such as witnesses. The information that is usually redacted includes the following:

Personal info, such as addresses, phone numbers, and names of family members;
Any information that would place the officer’s safety at risk;
Any information where the public interest is not served;
Medical or financial information.

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A PITCHESS MOTION IS FILED?

A successful Pitchess motion must go through a particular series of steps, as discussed below.

Filing the Motion

The attorney must include the following essential information when filing a Pitchess motion:

Identifying information (i.e., defendant, court case, officer in question, agency holding the records, etc.);
A description of the specific records being requested;
Proof that the relevant agencies have been given notice that the records are needed; and
Proof of good cause as to why the records are needed. (A judge will NOT grant a Pitchess motion unless good cause is established.)

In-Camera Hearing

Suppose the attorney has presented the motion correctly and proven good cause. In that case, the judge will hold an in-camera hearing (meaning “in private”) with only the police officer in question and anyone the officer wishes to be present.

During this hearing, the judge will review police files to determine which information is relevant to the case. Only information that the judge determines is relevant will be disclosed to the defendant. Off-limits records include the following:

Complaints against the officer occurring more than five years before the alleged police misconduct;
Personal conclusions of any other officer investigating a citizen complaint against the officer, and
Information so insignificant that disclosing it would have little or no practical benefit to the case.

Notably, any Pitchess materials can’t be disclosed for purposes other than the case in question, and the judge could issue a protective order to keep the information private if there is a good cause.

GRANTING OR DENYING THE MOTION

After the in-camera hearing, the Judge will rule whether to grant or deny the Pitchess motion.

If the motion is denied: None of the police records requested will be released. If the motion is granted, remember that the requested files will still not be released to the defense in most cases outright.

Instead, the Judge will provide the name and contact information of the people who filed previous complaints against the officer that generated those files, and your attorney may then interview them to get their testimony. Only if those witnesses are not available to testify will the actual records be released.

If the Pitchess motion is granted and the agency in question refuses to release the officer’s personnel records, the charges will be automatically dismissed.

Prosecutors might keep a “Brady List,” which is a list of the names of police with criminal convictions or past incidents of lying.

source

Pitchess Motions

A Pitchess motion (from Pitchess v Superior Court, 11 C3d 531 (1974)) is a special type of motion for discovery that requests information from a police officer’s confidential employment file. The need for this motion usually arises when the defendant alleges police misconduct. The type of information generally sought after with the Pitchess motion includes personnel records which show prejudicial acts, falsifying evidence and/or testimony, and the use of excessive force while on the job. To be successful on this motion, defense counsel must be able to establish that this information will pertain to some aspect of the defense.

Based on the Pitchess case, California Evidence Code sections 1043 to 1046 provide avenues to obtain some of the information which is sought by a Pitchess motion. Under these provisions, when defense counsel seeks to obtain officer personnel records they must file a written motion with the court. The written motion must be accompanied by other documents to be valid such as: a notice of the motion, a declaration or affidavit, police report copies detailing the detention and arrest of the defendant, and the proof of service.

The most detailed part of filing a Pitchess motion is the affidavit. Under California Evidence Code section 1043(b)(3), the affidavit must be based on “good cause” by demonstrating sufficient facts which show why such information is necessary and relevant to the issues in the defense’s case. The relevance between the information sought and the specific defense theory must have a strong link to prove such information will be material, and thus establish good cause. The court will determine whether good cause exists at a hearing where the agency holding the record, the district attorney, and the defendant and his/her attorney discuss the matter.

Under California Evidence Code sec. 1045, once the court is satisfied that good cause exists, it must then look at the evidence sought and determine whether it is indeed relevant to the defense’s case.

The court’s analysis is done through an “in camera” hearing, meaning that it is conducted outside of the presence of the jury and counsel. This hearing must be held by the court if the defendant shows that it was possible that the officer engaged is some sort of misconduct. Usually facts are alleged by the defense which shows how officer misconduct could’ve occurred. The defense may establish this by merely providing a different recitation of the factual circumstances, or may deny the facts as presented in the report by law enforcement. Garcia v Superior Court, 42 C4th 63, 72. In this examination, the court does not act as the trier of fact and thus will not determine credibility[1] or weigh evidence. [2]

Where the judge agrees with the defense that the information is relevant, an order is issued to disclose the information. Generally, the court will only mandate the disclosure of the names and contact information for witnesses involved in previous events with the officer. However, there are ways for the defense to get the actual reports of the incidents under certain circumstances, i.e. the witness is not available, the witness doesn’t remember, or refuses to discuss the incident.

Certain information is precluded from disclosure in a Pitchess motion. This includes events that happened too remotely in time, or the conclusions noted by internal affairs officers during the police investigation. Yet some of this information may still be available to the defense if it can show it relates to exculpatory information as provided by the Brady case.[3] Other information that is not disclosable is the personal information of the officer such as his/her place of residence.Hackett v Superior Court, 13 C4th 96 (1993).

Under a central case dealing with Pitchess motions, Alford v Superior Court, 29 C4th 1033 (2003), the court is required to order the recipient of Pitchess materials to not disclose them for any other purpose. Additionally, Alford holds that the district attorney will not automatically get access to the Pitchess documents. Protective orders may be issued to ensure the continued secrecy of the information involved. However, a protective order will only be issued if there is good cause to support it.

California Evidence code 1040(b) generally allows the government (i.e. law enforcement) to exercise a privilege over confidential information for which disclosure is against the public interest. Normally, to achieve the disclosure of such information, one needs to show that the interest to the public outweighs the agency’s need for disclosure. The use of a Pitchess motion can sometimes obtain access to the information even if the privilege is found valid. A law enforcement agency can be subject to discovery sanctions if it does not turn over the information in favor of continuing a claim to privilege. The situation can lead to a dismissal of the prosecution’s criminal complaint where there is no valid claim to privilege and the agency still refuses to provide the info requested.[4]

Whenever the prosecution appeals the allowance of a Pitchess motion, the appellate court will look to see if an abuse of discretion occurred. If the previous court denied the motion without conducting its in camera review, the appellate court can choose to remand the case and require the in camera hearing.[5] A reversal of the denial will only occur where the court has in fact done an in camera hearing and subsequently denied the motion.[6]

Pitchess motions can be used in DUI cases where a defendant believes the officer engaged in some sort of misconduct during the DUI investigation. This often occurs where there was some type of undue aggressiveness by police. A defense attorney will use the Pitchess motion process described above to obtain information about the officer’s past misconduct and inclination to treat suspects in an abusive manner. The Pitchess information can also be used to show past prejudicial acts by the officer, or a pattern of falsifying evidence. If you believe any of these situations occurred in your case, it is important to inform your criminal defense attorney to determine if a Pitchess motion will help your defense.

[1] Warrick v Superior Court, 35 C4th 1011 (2005)
[2] People v Gaines, 46 C4th 172 (2009)
[3] City of Los Angeles v Superior Court, 29 C4th 1 (2002)
[4] Dell M v Superior Court 70 CA3d 782.
[5] People v Gaines 46 C4th 172.
[6] People v Memro 38 C3d 658

source

Discovery And Police Officers: The Pitchess Process

Discovery relating to a peace officer’s job performance or disciplinary actions must follow a unique, statutory process

Under California law, certain information related to peace officers enjoys a conditional privilege. This limited privilege is held by both the peace officer and the agency. (Michael v. Gates (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 737, 744.) So whether you are representing an officer in a personal-injury or employment matter, or suing a law enforcement agency for battery or other civil-rights’ violations, you need to understand what information is privileged and how to get the information you need – or how to protect your client’s right to privacy

To obtain information from officer personnel records, complaint investigations, or disciplinary action against a peace officer, a party must follow a unique, statutory discovery method. Although this discovery vehicle is generally codified at Evidence Code sections 1043 et seq., it is often referred to as Pitchess, for the landmark California Supreme Court case Pitchess v. Superior Court (Echeveria) (1979) 11 Cal.3d 531. This article discusses the development of the Pitchess process and describes what kind of information is conditionally privileged. The article concludes by offering guidance through the Pitchess-motion procedure, which generally consists of a noticed motion setting forth, by counsel’s affidavit, good cause for the court to conduct an in camera review to determine which records are relevant and to be produced.

The development of the Pitchess process

In 1974, the Legislature adopted Penal Code section 832.5.This section requires law-enforcement agencies to establish a procedure for investigating citizen complaints against peace officers. Section 832.5 also requires the agencies to retain records of the original complaint and investigation for at least five years.

That same year, the California Supreme Court decided Pitchess. Cesar Echeveria was charged with battery of certain deputy sheriffs. Echeveria claimed that he acted in self-defense in response to excessive force by the deputies. As part of his defense, Echeveria sought investigations of citizen complaints of excessive force against those same officers. The Pitchess Court permitted Echeveria to obtain the investigations over Sheriff Pitchess’s objections. (Pitchess, supra, 11 Cal.3d at 534.)

The Pitchess decision rocked the law-enforcement world, and record shredding and discovery abuses allegedly followed. (See San Francisco Police Officers’ Assn. v. Sup. Ct. (City & Cty. of San Francisco) (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 183, 189.) To curtail these practices, the Legislature enacted changes to the statutory scheme to balance the right to privacy of the peace officer and the employing agency with the interest of justice. (See City of Azusa v. Sup. Ct. (Madrigal) (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 693, 696-97.) In 1978, Penal Code section 832.5 was amended at the same time Penal Code sections 832.7, 832.8 and Evidence Code section 1043 were added by Senate Bill No. 1436. With these amendments, the Legislature attempted to protect a party’s right to a fair trial and the officer’s privacy interest. (People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1227.)

Evidence Code section 1043(a) sets forth the initial Pitchess procedure:

In any case in which discovery or disclosure is sought of peace or custodial officer personnel records or records maintained pursuant to Section 832.5 of the Penal Code or information from those records, the party seeking the discovery or disclosure shall file a written motion with the appropriate court or administrative body upon written notice to the governmental agency which has custody and control of the records. The written notice shall be given at the times prescribed by subdivision (b) of Section 1005 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Upon receipt of the notice the governmental agency served shall immediately notify the individual whose records are sought.

Case law has refined the parameters of this process. Notably, a Pitchess motion trumps general discovery rules in both the civil and criminal context. (Davis v. City of Sacramento (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 393, 400; see also, People v. Sup. Ct. (Gremminger) (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 397, 403 [statutory Pitchess scheme takes precedence over discovery procedures in the Code of Civil Procedure]; Fagan v. Sup. Ct. (People) (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 607, 310 [prosecutor must comply with Pitchess process to disclose Pitchess information of retired peace officer defendant].) So, information protected by the Pitchess privilege is not discoverable under Civil Discovery Act inspection demands. (See Cty. of Los Angeles v. Sup. Ct. (Uhley) (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 1605, 1609; but cf. Dominguez v. Sup. Ct. (City of San Gabriel) (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 6, 11 [finding that the City’s rights under Evidence Code sections 1043 et seq. were not impaired irrespective of how plaintiff’s motion to compel was entitled].)

In fact, the agency with custody or control of the records has no obligation to respond to a Code of Civil Procedure section 2031 request for production of Pitchess information. Moreover, the failure to respond to such a request does not waive any Pitchess objections the agency may have. (Uhley, supra, 219 Cal.App.3d at 1611.) Nor may Pitchess information be disclosed pursuant to a California Public Records Act request. (Hemet v. Sup. Ct. (Press-Enterprise Co.) (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1411, 1422; Cty. of Los Angeles v. Sup. Ct. (Kusar) (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 588, 600.) The privilege applies to both pre-trial discovery and live testimony. (Fletcher v. Sup. Ct. (Oakland Police Dep’t) (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 386, 403.)

Whether the Pitchess process is available in administrative proceedings is uncertain. In Brown v. Valverde (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1531, the First District Court of Appeal found that the Pitchess process is not available in Department of Motor Vehicle administrative per se hearings. (Id., 183 Cal.App.4th at 1535.) In Riverside County Sheriff’s Department v. Stiglitz (2012) 147 Cal.Rptr.3d 292, however, the Fourth District court of appeal expressly analyzed and “completely” distinguished Brown, supra. The Stiglitz court found that an administrative hearing officer may rule on a Pitchess motion where such discovery is relevant in a Government Code section 3304(b) hearing, which is an administrative appeal of discipline imposed against a public safety officer. (Id., 147 Cal.Rptr. at 308, 313.) On January 16, 2013, the California Supreme Court granted review of the Fourth District’s opinion, depublishing the appellate opinion and leaving the issue uncertain until the case is decided.

As for federal court, the Pitchess process is not binding. (Jackson v. Cty. of Sacramento (E.D.Cal.1997) 175 F.R.D. 653, 654.) The California Pitchess discovery rule requires that the requesting party make showing of materiality, which was specifically rejected in Federal Rule of Evidence 402. (Soto v. City of Concord (N.D.Cal.1995) 162 F.R.D. 603, 609 at n.2.)

Information subject to the Pitchess privilege

Penal Code sections 832.7 and 832.8 provide the foundation for what kind of information related to peace officers is subject to the conditional Pitchess privilege. The information is protected regardless of whether it could be obtained from other sources. (Hackett v. Sup. Ct. (Glin) (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 96, 100.)

Penal Code section 832.7(a) states, in pertinent part:

Peace officer or custodial officer personnel records and records maintained by any state or local agency pursuant to Section 832.5, or information obtained from these records, are confidential and shall not be disclosed in any criminal or civil proceeding except by discovery pursuant to Sections 1043 and 1046 of the Evidence Code. . . .

Penal Code section 832.8 states,

As used in Section 832.7, “personnel records” means any file maintained under that individual’s name by his or her employing agency and containing records relating to any of the following:

(a) Personal data, including marital status, family members, educational and employment history, home addresses, or similar information.

(b) Medical history.

(d) Employee advancement, appraisal, or discipline.

(e) Complaints, or investigations of complaints, concerning an event or transaction in which he or she participated, or which he or she perceived, and pertaining to the manner in which he or she performed his or her duties.

(f) Any other information the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

“Personal data” does not include the officer’s identity, unless the officer was the subject of a complaint or disciplinary hearing, the employing agency, dates of current employment, or other information relating to the officer’s current job status. (Comm’n on Peace Officer Standards & Training v. Sup. Ct. (Los Angeles Times Commc’ns, LLC) (2007) 42 Cal.4th 278, 294-96, 299.) Nor does personal data include an officer’s salary. (Int’l Fed’n of Prof’l & Technical Eng’rs v. Sup. Ct. (Contra Costa Newspapers, Inc.) (2007) 42 Cal.4th 319, 341.)

The definition of “personnel records” pertaining to “complaints” is expansive and includes many types of documents related to potential or actual disciplinary action against an officer. Such records are not limited to Internal Affairs investigations, but also include Citizen Review Board’s reports. (Davis v. City of San Diego (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 893, 898, 900.) Furthermore, “[u]nsustained complaints are discoverable as well as sustained complaints.” (People v. Zamora (1980) 28 Cal.3d 88, 93, n.1 (citing Saulter v. Muni. Ct. (People) (1977) 75 Cal.App.3d 231, 240; Kelvin L. v. Sup. Ct. (Cabell) (1976) 62 Cal.App.3d 823, 829).)

“Personnel records” also encompass disciplinary proceedings against peace officers. (Copley Press, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (Cty. of San Diego) (2006) 39 Cal.4th 1272, 1279.) Disciplinary proceedings and citizen complaints are subject to the Pitchess scheme regardless of “the mechanisms set up by a local jurisdiction to handle such matters . . . .” (Berkeley Police Ass’n v. City of Berkeley (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 385, 401 (citing Copley Press, Inc., supra, 39 Cal.4th at 1294-95); see also San Francisco Police Officers’ Ass’n, supra, 202 Cal.App.3d at 188 (determining that a local rule allowing the complainant access to the hearing officer’s decision or director’s recommendation violates confidentiality provisions).) The Pitchess privilege remains applicable to “personnel records” even after a peace officer leaves her or his employment, so long as the former peace officer was employed as an officer when the conduct being investigated occurred. (Gremminger, supra, 58 Cal.App.4th at 406.)

The agency often argues that any disclosure of information related to complaint investigations should be limited to the names and addresses of witnesses, as typical in criminal cases. In the criminal context, disclosure was limited to names and contact information of witnesses and complainants because the court believed the information was sufficient for the requesting litigant to prepare his or her case. In civil litigation, however, the rationale for this limitation may not apply. The court in Haggarty v. Superior Court (Guindazola) (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1079, 1090 stated:

The central rationale underlying the rule limiting discovery to witness identifying information is that the actual documents of third-party complaint information often have minimal relevance and constitute a substantial invasion of officer privacy. This reasoning does not apply in this case. As compared with the third-party complaint situation, the information contained in the Internal Affairs report is highly probative. Guindazola has the burden of proving the elements of his claims, and the investigation at issue concerns the very incident that is the subject of the civil claim. Additionally, Haggerty’s reasonable privacy concerns are diminished because he is the defendant in the litigation and the requested internal investigation records concern his actions that are alleged to be wrongful and will be fully litigated at trial. (Ibid.)

Moreover, the criminal-case opinions explicitly hold that if the information disclosed proved inadequate, the requesting party is not precluded from discovering additional information from the personnel files. (See, e.g., Carruthers v. Muni. Ct. (People) (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 439, 442 [recognizing right to receive additional discovery if initial disclosures prove inadequate]; City of Azusa, supra, 191 Cal.App.3d at 696-97 [noting that disclosure of additional information was proper under Pitchess, supra, where witnesses were unavailable for interviews or could not remember details of events about which they had complained]; Kelvin L., supra, 62 Cal.App.3d at 829 [approving disclosure of witness identification information, but noting that if for any reason that information was inadequate, petitioner could move for further discovery].)

The nuts and bolts of the Pitchess procedure

The Noticed Motion

Evidence Code section 1043 sets forth the requirements of the Pitchess motion, and states,

(b) The motion shall include all of the following:

(1) Identification of the proceeding in which discovery or disclosure is sought, the party seeking discovery or disclosure, the peace or custodial officer whose records are sought, the governmental agency which has custody and control of the records, and the time and place at which the motion for discovery or disclosure shall be heard.

(2) A description of the type of records or information sought.

(3) Affidavits showing good cause for the discovery or disclosure sought, setting forth the materiality thereof to the subject matter involved in the pending litigation and stating upon reasonable belief that the governmental agency identified has the records or information from the records.

(c) No hearing upon a motion for discovery or disclosure shall be held without full compliance with the notice provisions of this section except upon a showing by the moving party of good cause for noncompliance, or upon a waiver of the hearing by the governmental agency identified as having the records.

A party must set forth with “some specificity” the type of information sought. (Warrick v. Sup. Ct. (City of Los Angeles Police Dep’t) (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1011, 1021.) The information requested must demonstrate that the party is not simply going on a fishing expedition. (City of Santa Cruz, supra, 49 Cal.3d at 85.) In City of Santa Cruz v. Municipal Court (Kennedy) (1989) 49 Cal.3d 74, the Court found that “other complaints of excessive force” sufficiently described the type of records sought and met the standard for good cause. (See id., 49 Cal.3d at 90-91.) In addition, if a party is seeking records related to an excessive force claim, the motion must also include the relevant police reports on the circumstances of the force alleged. (See Evid. Code, § 1046.)

The motion should be served on opposing counsel as well as the agency, or agencies, with custody or control of the records requested. (See Evid. Code, § 1043(c).)

The Affidavit(s) Showing Good Cause

The affidavit or declaration demonstrating good cause is the most critical component of the Pitchess motion. Evidence Code section 1043(b)(3) requires a showing of “good cause” by affidavit, which must demonstrate both “materiality” as well as a “reasonable belief” that the government agency has custody and control of the records or information from the records. An affiant need not, however, prove the existence of particular records – the “‘reasonable belief’ . . . may be premised upon a rational inference from known or reasonably assumed facts.” (City of Santa Cruz, supra, 49 Cal.3d at 90 (emphasis in the original).)

“This two-part showing of good cause is a ‘relatively low threshold for discovery.’” (Warrick, supra, 35 Cal.4th at 1019 (citing City of Santa Cruz, supra, 49 Cal.3d at 83); see also People v. Gaines (2009) 46 Cal.4th 172, 182 (accord).) These “‘relatively relaxed standards’ serve to ‘insure the production’ for the trial court review of ‘all potentially relevant documents.’” (Warrick, supra, 35 Cal.4th at 1016 (citing Santa Cruz, supra, at 49 Cal.3d 84).)

“Information is material if it ‘will facilitate the ascertainment of the facts and a fair trial.’” (Haggerty, supra, 117 Cal.App.4th at 1086 (internal citations omitted).) The California Supreme Court articulated four factors by which a party can demonstrate materiality: (1) a logical connection between the information requested and the party’s claims at issue; (2) the information requested is tailored to support the party’s; (3) the requested discovery will support or is likely to lead to information that would support the claims; and (4) the theory under which the information might be admissible at trial. (Warrick, supra, 35 Cal.4th at 1027; see also Gaines, supra, 46 Cal.4th at 182 (accord).) Obtaining information to impeach an officer’s credibility is permitted. (Garden Grove Police Dep’t v. Sup. Ct. (Reimann) (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 430, 433 (review denied).)

Note, however, that the trial court is not tasked with evaluating whether a party’s theories are credible, or whether the party will prevail. The trial court does not weigh or assess the allegations, and does not determine whether they are persuasive. (Warrick, supra, 35 Cal.4th at 1025-1026.) A party is not required to present a credible or believable factual account of, or a motive for, police misconduct. (Uybungco v. Sup. Ct. (San Diego Police Dep’t) (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1043, 1049.) A party must simply present a plausible factual foundation for the discovery requested: a scenario that could or might have occurred. (Warrick, supra, 35 Cal.4th at 1026.)

Importantly, the affidavit for “good cause may be submitted by counsel.” (People v. Memro (1985) 38 Cal.3d 658, 676, overruled on other grounds.) The California Supreme Court expressly allows counsel’s declaration to be made on information and belief – no personal knowledge is required. In fact, “the Legislature expressly considered and rejected a requirement of personal knowledge [for section 1043(b)(3) affidavits].” (City of Santa Cruz, supra, 49 Cal.3d at 88-89 (emphasis in original. Indeed, “counsel need not disclose the source of the information asserted or how it was obtained . . . .” (Garcia v. Sup. Ct. (City of Santa Ana) (2007) 42 Cal.4th 63, 72.) The declaration may be filed under seal if necessary to protect the attorney-client or attorney work product privileges. (Id., 42 Cal.4th at 68.) Submitting a declaration by counsel protects a party from cross-examination on the document.

Thus, the declaration lays out the theory of the case, explaining why the records are essential to the issue. If you are making a Pitchess motion, don’t be coy in the declaration. Lay out the facts, and demonstrate to the court why these records are crucial to your theory of the case. The declaration is your best chance to have a “presence” in chambers while the court is conducting the in camera review to determine which documents the court will order produced. The court generally will not stop the in camera proceedings to question you about why certain documents might be relevant, or request additional briefing on an issue. The declaration is your only opportunity to refute the agency’s objections to relevance in chambers. If you are opposing a Pitchess motion, scrutinize the supporting affidavit for whether the facts averred to adequately support the requested information.

The In Camera Review and Production

The court will conduct in camera review of the documents before ordering any of the records produced. On occasion, the custodian of records for the agency will appear with the relevant documents on the day of the hearing on the Pitchess motion, so the court may proceed with the in camera inspection right away. The court may also schedule the in camera review for a later date.

Upon order of the court, “the custodian of records is obligated to bring to the trial court all ‘potentially relevant’ documents . . . .” (City of Santa Cruz, supra, 49 Cal.3d at 84.)

[I]f the custodian has any doubt whether a particular document is relevant, he or she should present it to the trial court. . . [T]he locus of decision making is to be the trial court, not the . . . . custodian of records. The custodian should be prepared to state in chambers and for the record what other documents (or category of documents) not presented to the court were included in the complete personnel record, and why those were deemed irrelevant or otherwise nonresponsive . . . . The trial court should then make a record of what documents it examined before ruling on the Pitchess motion.

(Mooc, supra, 26 Cal.4th at 1229.)

To make an adequate record of the documents examined, the court may photocopy the records the custodian produced and place them in a confidential file, or the court can make a list of or state for the record the documents examined. (Sisson v. Sup. Ct. (Dumanis) (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 24, 38.) A proper record facilitates any appellate review for abuse of discretion.

To determine which records, if any, will be ordered produced, the court reviews the documents in camera for relevance. To be relevant, the records must contain information which may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. (Gaines, supra, 46 Cal.4th at 182; Warrick, supra, 35 Cal.4th at 1024; Haggerty, supra, 117 Cal.App.4th at 1087.) The information discovered does not have to be ultimately admissible at trial. (Larry E. v. Sup. Ct. (City of Long Beach) (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 25, 31-32.) The court may also consider whether the information may be obtained from business records, rather than individual personnel records, where the issue concerns the policies or pattern of conduct of the employing agency. (Evid. Code, § 1045(c).)

Despite the permissive standard of relevance, the Evidence Code places certain restrictions on what information can and cannot be disclosed. Evidence Code section 1045(b) enumerates specific exceptions to what information is per se not relevant and cannot be disclosed. Section 1045(b) finds that information that is not relevant includes:

(1) Information consisting of complaints concerning conduct occurring more than five years before the event or transaction that is the subject of the litigation in aid of which discovery or disclosure is sought.

(2) In any criminal proceeding the conclusions of any officer investigating a complaint filed pursuant to Section 832.5 of the Penal Code.

(3) Facts sought to be disclosed that are so remote as to make disclosure of little or no practical benefit.

Furthermore, “[r]ecords of peace officers or custodial officers, . . . including supervisorial officers, who either were not present during the arrest or had no contact with the party seeking disclosure from the time of the arrest until the time of booking, or who were not present at the time the conduct is alleged to have occurred within a jail facility, shall not be subject to disclosure.” (Evid. Code, § 1047.) The court must also consider whether the information may be obtained from business records, rather than individual personnel records, where the issue concerns the policies or pattern of conduct of the employing agency. (Evid. Code, § 1045(c).)

The in camera proceeding may take minutes, days, or even a series of hearings of a course of months. With the budget cuts, be prepared to provide a private court reporter. The transcript will be sealed, and any documents ordered produced will be subject to a protective order. At minimum, the protective order will prohibit the records disclosed or discovery from being used “for any purpose other than a court proceeding pursuant to applicable law.” (Evid. Code, § 1045(e).) The court may also issue a protective order which justice requires to protect the officer or agency from unnecessary annoyance, embarrassment or oppression” upon a showing of good cause pursuant to a motion of the agency or the officer. (Evid. Code, § 1045(d).)

A Pitchess motion is a powerful tool to obtain information from the personnel records of peace officers, including complaint investigations or disciplinary actions by the employing agency. Often, law enforcement agencies have dedicated Pitchess units to respond to – i.e., oppose – Pitchess motions. Understanding how the Pitchess process works will help you make an informed decision on how to best serve your client’s interests, whether you are making a Pitchess motion, or opposing one. source

When and Why Does a Judge Have to Grant a Pitchess Motion?

Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess) has been interpreted in many ways over the years, mostly associated with a criminal defendant’s right to certain discovery of police officer personnel file materials to support a defense to defendant.

The Reader’s Digest Version: A judge must grant a Pitchess Motion if a defendant shows such information in a police officer’s personnel records concerning police officer misconduct in the past is material to the subject matter of the case against defendant. The judge’s order, under Pitchess, can only order production of documents stretching five years back, not more.

It has often been said that the Pitchess procedure “operates in parallel with Brady and does not prohibit the disclosure of Brady information.” City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 1, 14 (citing to Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83 (Brady)). In other words, “all information that the trial court finds to be exculpatory and material under Brady must be disclosed, notwithstanding Evidence Code § 1045’s bar on disclosure of police personnel records more than five years old.” People v. Superior Court (Johnson) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 696, at 720.

But under Brady, evidence is “material” only if it is reasonably probable a prosecutor’s outcome would have been different had the evidence been disclosed. Under Pitchess, defendant seeking police personnel information must only show that the information sought is material “to the subject matter involved in the pending litigation.” Thus, the type of information discoverable under Pitchess is broader than under Brady and any information that meets Brady materiality standards must be disclosed under Pitchess.

It is against this background that in 2016, the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department reviewed all its deputy personnel files and “identified approximately 300 deputies who had administratively founded allegations of misconduct involving moral turpitude, conduct which might be used to impeach a deputy’s testimony in a criminal prosecution.” Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v. Superior Court (2017) 13 Cal.App. 5th 413, 423 (ALADS).

There were eleven categories of misconduct upon which the panel based its decision, based on various violations of the Sheriff’s Manual of Policy and Procedures. The categories included (1) immoral conduct; (2) bribes, rewards, loans, gifts, favors; (3) misappropriation of property; (4) tampering with evidence; (5) false statements; (6) failure to make statements and/or making false statements during departmental internal investigations; (7) obstructing an investigation / influencing a witness; (8) false information in records; (9) policy of equality – discriminatory harassment; (10) unreasonable force; and (11) family violence. ALADS, at 423.

In early 2017, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Deputy Adam Halloran was driving his marked patrol vehicle northbound on I-5 when he spotted a Jeep in lane 2 “hugging the left side of the lane.” When the Jeep passed a semitrailer, the rear tire of the Jeep crossed into lane 1 twice (a violation of Vehicle Code § 21658(a)), Halloran made a traffic stop.

Manuel Serrano was driving the Jeep, with his cousin, Homar Romero, being a passenger.

Halloran testified that Serrano was extremely nervous. He was breathing heavily and his hands trembled. Halloran then allegedly saw a FoodSaver box, which Halloran recognized from his training as a device used to vacuum seal narcotics.

Halloran then asked to search the vehicle and Serrano said no. Halloran then placed Serrano in the backseat of this patrol car and requested a K-9 unit. The dog then arrived and indicated the presence of narcotics in the FoodSaver box. When Halloran opened it, he found nothing but baggies. However, there was a wrapped present in the backseat, too, which Halloran unwrapped and found it was 2.5 pounds of cocaine. Halloran then took Serrano to the Santa Clarita station for booking and released his passenger.

Serrano was then charged with sale and transportation of a controlled substance (Health and Safety Code § 11352).

The public defender representing Serrano filed a discovery motion, seeking information that was potentially relevant in Halloran’s personnel file for the judge’s in camera review. In the motion, the public defender said, “the credibility of the arresting deputy is material to both a motion to suppress evidence and to trial. He is the arresting officer and the sole witness for the prosecution on all issues” and “depending upon the type of Brady evidence in this officer’s personnel file, it may be used to impeach” his testimony and credibility at any hearing or trial. It was not a pure Pitchess motion.

The trial court denied the motion as to the items in Halloran’s personnel file, ruling that the defense must allege how Halloran engaged in acts of misconduct in this case.

Serrano filed a writ of mandate up to the Court of Appeal and the Court of Appeal reversed in favor of Serrano. It said Brady imposes a sua sponte (by oneself) duty on the prosecution to disclose material exculpatory to the defense, including material concerning the police. The matter was remanded with an order for the court to conduct a Pitchess review of Halloran’s personnel file and product this to Serrano.

We find this ruling extraordinary insofar as it extends Brady to police information, saying – we think – that essentially that a formal Pitchess motion is not always required, at least in LA County when there is ALADS information on a deputy sheriff.

The Second Appellate District Court ruling discussed above is People v. Manuel Jesus Serrano, however, under California Rules of Court, Rule 8.1115(a), it is not to be cited to as it is an unpublished decision. source

Was There a Bad Cop on Your Case? What Is a Pitchess Motion?

Our office often hears clients describe how a police officer made a traffic stop of them because they “look like a gang banger” or “because the cop knows me” or “because the police officer just wanted to check out my girlfriend, who was a passenger.” Our client may claim the officer planted evidence. Or our client may say the police lied in the police report or coerced a confession.

About This Article Briefly: A Pitchess motion is aimed at finding impeachment material to undermine the credibility of a police officer, based on prior misconduct within the last five years. It is best reserved for cases when a jury must adjudge the credibility of a police officer’s claims.

This is often difficult to prove, but if the police officer really is a “bad cop,” a defendant may ask the judge to order the production of the officer’s confidential personnel file. This may allow defendant to discover the officer has a history of using excessive force, acting upon ethnic or racial bias, falsifying information or planting evidence or coercing a confession (People v. Memro (1985) 38 Cal.3d 658, 679, 214 Cal.Rptr. 832).

Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531, 113 Cal.Rptr. 897 is the case wherein the California Supreme Court made such disclosure permissible. When someone mentions a “Pitchess Motion,” this is the case being described, although the case is now partially codified at Evidence Code §§ 1043 to 1046, wherein certain required procedures are set forth for requesting disclosure of personnel records of police officers. Such Pitchess disclosures are also available to defendants in juvenile proceedings (City of San Jose v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 47, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 73), even though juvenile proceedings are technically civil in character.

To obtain the police officer’s records, defendant must establish good cause for the disclosure. This is most often established through a declaration alleging specific facts showing why certain records are material to the subject matter in the pending litigation. Evidence Code § 1043(b)(3). A person alleging “grandiose conspiracies” to frame a defendant may not show the misconduct could or might have occurred. Also, it is not enough to just claim that police are lying. There must be an explanation for the events as defendant claims to challenge the police report.

The person signing the declaration must have a reasonable belief that the government agency at issue has the records. The motion then must be personally served on the government agency (not its lawyer) sixteen court days before the hearing and, if served by mail, five calendar days must be added. It merits mention that the prosecution need not see the whole of the motion.

The prosecution only needs notice that the hearing will take place. The prosecutor is usually not a party to oppose the motion. Instead, it is the police agency.

However, the prosecution 1) has a duty to seek out Brady evidence (Brady evidence is evidence which tends to exonerate or help the defense) 2) the prosecutors can directly access peace officer personnel files (Penal Code § 832.7) to search them for Brady material and 3) that the prosecutor must file its own Pitchess motion in order to get court permission to disclose the Brady information it finds in those personnel files. People v. Superior Court (Johnson) (A140767) (August 12, 2014, 1st District Court of Appeal). The court makes it clear that the DA has to make the initial Brady inquiry and cannot shift that duty to the trial court.

If the judge finds that good cause exists, it must hold an in camera (off the record) proceeding to determine “if the scenario of alleged officer misconduct could or might have occurred.” Warrick v. Superior Court (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1011, 1016, 29 Cal.Rptr.3d 2.

If the judge orders the production of the requested personnel records, documents within such records may show, for example, that the officer had been disciplined for or accused of planting evidence in prior case(s). This prior history can make defendant’s claim of similar misconduct more credible. Likewise, if the police officer has a history of using excessive force against African Americans, for example, and defendant in this case is African American and was severely beaten by the officer at issue, without provocation, such evidence may narrow the issues and lead to a plea bargain that is fair.

source

Getting Police Records Via a Pitchess Motion Now Easier

One aspect of our country’s criminal justice system is a distrust of too much government power. The concern traces itself back to our country’s origin and a desire to escape British rule.

In a Nutshell: The Prosecutor Is Entitled to Direct Access to Police Personnel Records, However Defendant Must File a Pitchess Motion to See Such Records.

Due process became the concept designed to ensure procedural fairness. It was set forth in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and was made applicable to the individual states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

A big concern of those accused of any crime is that police had too much power. After all, police can gather evidence and documents, but then destroy such evidence. Police officers can also grow frustrated and use too much force or pull over people in traffic stops without reasonable suspicion. In fact, some officers may be “dirty cops” that really should not be trusted with enforcing our laws. Such police officers may even have a history of being administratively disciplined for being too aggressive, destroying evidence or falsifying police reports.

Court of Appeal First Appellate District San Francisco

Those accused of committing a crime will often believe or argue that they are not only innocent, but a victim of a “dirty cop” and the accused wants to prove it. Due process, however, does not allow defendants direct access to police personnel records, both for privacy concerns and for concern that disclosure of such records may be irrelevant. Penal Code § 832.7(a) codifies these concerns by providing that peace officer personnel files are confidential and not subject to disclosure in a criminal or civil matter except by a motion and court order. Such a motion is called a Pitchess motion and it is made under Penal Code § 1043 and 1045. Pete Pitchess was the Los Angeles County Sheriff when the case Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 was decided.

In 1963, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a similar issue in Brady v. Maryland at 373 U.S. 83. In Brady, the court stated the prosecution is required to disclose evidence that is a favorable and material to the defense.” Such material has become known as Brady material.

Since 1963, defendants have thus requested Brady material through Pitchess motions in California. When this request is made, the judge must first identify that material within the officer’s personnel record that must be disclosed. This must be performed by the judge and cannot be accomplished by the judge delegating this duty to another person. Once such material is identified, it can be produced for the defendant.

In November, 2012, the San Francisco Police Department were summoned to the home of Daryl Lee Johnson. He was arrested for felony domestic violence (Penal Code § 273.5) and one count of misdemeanor injuring a wireless communication device (Penal Code § 591.5), a cell phone of the victim. Two officers were involved in the arrest.

In most cases, defendant will claim a police officer acted with excessive force, destroyed evidence of coerced a confession (or all three) and will seek the officer’s personnel records to see if a citizen’s complaint for similar conduct was made. In Johnson’s case, however, police came to the prosecutor and advised that the police officers’ records were a big problem in the case.

The prosecutor wanted to look at the records, but believed Penal Code § 832.7(a) required a judge’s order before he or she could look at the records. The police also wanted this procedure to be followed to avoid a lawsuit from the officers for revealing the problems, which could involve a future civil rights action.

The prosecutor therefore filed a motion to get a judge to review the personnel records of the two officers and then determine if any of the records (“Brady material”) were subject to disclosure. The motion was served on Defendant and his counsel then filed a similar motion asking for the court to order the material be produced for him.

In response, the judge directed the San Francisco Police Department to give the prosecution access to the police records so it could produce it for the defendant. The ruling was significant in that it removed the judge from any role in reviewing the files first. Instead, this duty was passed over to the prosecutor.

The prosecutor appealed the order, arguing that under Penal Code § 832.7, the judge must perform a review of the records, not the prosecutor. The First Appellate District, in People v. Superior Court of San Francisco (Johnson) (2014 DJDAR 10683), agreed with the trial court, concluding that 832.7 does not create a barrier between the prosecution and its duties under Brady to provide the defense with officer personnel files.

We think this is a watershed ruling insofar as it removes the usual prosecution foot-dragging that is common when a defendant files a Pitchess motion. Often, the prosecution will apologize that it cannot produce any records until the judge performs his or her review of the files. Now, that delay-creating excuse is gone. It will be very interesting to see if two years from now the courts can document an increase in Pitchess motions.

Update: The California Supreme Court subsequently handled this case on appeal, reversing the First Appellate District, stating that prosecutors must follow the same Pitchess process as defense counsel to review police records and that prosecutors do not have unfettered access and control over what records to release to defense counsel. We like this ruling because it prevents the prosecution, if unethical, from preventing such disclosure.

The citation for the Appellate District Court ruling discussed above is Superior Court v. San Francisco Cnty. (Johnson) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 696. source

If a Pitchess Motion Is Granted, Must the Judge Review Records?

Under Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal. 3d 531, Evidence Code § 1043 and Penal Code § 833.5, a defendant has a right to review a police officer’s confidential personal records if those files contain information that is potentially relevant to the defense.

In 50 Words or Less: When a Pitchess Motion is Granted, the judge must review the police officer’s confidential personnel records rather than delegate such review to another person.

When a defendant wants to see such records, he must file a motion asking a judge to order the police to produce such files. To win such a motion, aptly named a “Pitchess Motion,” defendant must show, usually through declarations, that there is good cause to produce the records. Good cause is shown when defendant establishes the materially of the personal records, for example because of an officer’s history of excessive force, dishonesty or false reporting, suggesting the likelihood that the officer again engaged in such conduct.

Fourth Appellate District CA Court of Appeals Santa Ana

The next issue is who reviews the records before providing copies to defendant. After all, police officers are wary of fishing expeditions by defendants to obtain personal information that could be used to intimidate, extort or even ruin the career of an officer. Judges are similarly concerned with a trial turning into a circus by needless consumption of time on irrelevant information. Consequently, the issue is whether a judge must examine the record himself or whether the judge can delegate this duty to someone else.

The case of Ronald Sisson addressed these questions.

In November, 2007, police officers from the Costa Mesa Police Department received information that parolee Sisson, who had stopped reporting to his parole officer, was living in Carlsbad. Police believed he was involved in a kidnapping, theft and a criminal street gang. Seven officers from the Costa Mesa Police Department and two parole officers then went to Sisson’s house in Carlsbad in three unmarked cars. They intended to apprehend him.

According to the police report, all the officers wore badges and clothing that identified themselves as police, for example, a black polo shirt with “Gang Unit” written on the front. Another officer wore a shirt that said “Police Gang Unit” on the back. Other officers wore clothing saying “Police” on the front, back and both sleeves.

When officers arrived, Sisson was leaving. It was dark. Only two officers got out of their vehicle. Sisson allegedly panicked and sped away. Sisson allegedly ran over one of the police officer’s feet. He then rammed his vehicle into one of the other cars and sped off.

Police opened fire, shooting over twenty-five rounds at Sisson’s car. One of the rounds killed Sisson’s passenger. Sisson fled on foot, but was soon caught.

Sisson was charged with murder and three counts of assault with a deadly weapons (Penal Code § 245(a)).

Sisson claimed he believed he was under attack by other gang members and that the police officers failed to have their lights on. He claimed police did not identify themselves. He claimed officers also lied about not knowing he had a passenger.

In his motion, he argued he had good cause to see the officer’s personnel records for their history of dishonesty and false reporting because he claimed the police report was false. If Sisson’s version of events were true, he had a self-defense claim to the provocative murder case against him.

The trial court denied Sisson’s motion as to some of the seven officers and Sisson appealed to the Fourth Appellate District.

The appellate court, in Ronald Jay Sisson v. Superior Court of San Diego County (2013 DJDAR 5847), reversed in part, allowing Sisson access to more police records for reports of dishonesty and false reporting. The appellate court also directed that the trial court judge himself or herself must review the records before providing them to defendant, rather than rely upon a delegated person to do so.

The citation for the Fourth Appellate District Court of Appeals ruling discussed above is Ronald Jay Sisson v. Superior Court of San Diego County (4th App. Dist., 2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 24. source

2019 New Law Archives - Good Shepherd News - Fastest Growing Religious, Free Speech & Political Content

Assembly Bill 748 Makes Video Evidence Captured by Police Agencies Subject to Disclosure as Public Records

Governor Signs SB 1421 and AB 748, Dramatically Increasing Public Access to Peace Officer Personnel Records

CA Laws Intersect to Create New, More Immediate Disclosure Obligations for Police Recordings

Law Enforcement Agencies Must Disclose Video and Audio Recordings Even if it is Relating to a “Critical Incident” and Certain Investigation Records Without Pitchess Process Under New Laws

California bill requires cops to release body cam video

Assembly Bill 748

Governor Signs SB 1421 and AB 748, Dramatically Increasing Public Access to Peace Officer Personnel Records

AB 748: More Public Access to Body Camera Footage Under PRA

Amendment to California Law Gives Public Agencies More Responsibility to Provide Footage

More access also below

Section 832.7 – Peace officer or custodial officer personnel records

Senate Bill No. 1421 – California Public Records Act

Assembly Bill 748 Makes Video Evidence Captured by Police Agencies Subject to Disclosure as Public Records

SB 2, Creating Police Decertification Process and Expanding Civil Liability Exposure

California Senate Bill 16 (SB 16) – 2023-2024 – Peace officers: Release of Records

The Right To Know: How To Fulfill The Public’s Right Of Access To Police Records

PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST CONTACTS for Los Angeles County (click here for media policy)

Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department SB-1421 Records

Obtaining a Report from LASD Records (You, 3rd party or consel can obtain)

SB1421 – Form Access to California Police Records

California Statewide CPRA Requests Submit a CPRA Request

How do I submit a request for information?

from the ACLU we have 2 types of SB 1421 Templates for Sample Requests

We also have more robust sample letters below:

Sample Letter | SB 1421 & SB 16 Records

Sample Letter | Police Recordings

To Learn More…. Read MORE Below and click the links Below

Abuse & Neglect – The Mandated Reporters (Police, D.A & Medical & the Bad Actors)

Mandated Reporter Laws – Nurses, District Attorney’s, and Police should listen up If You Would Like to Learn More About: The California Mandated Reporting LawClick Here

To Read the Penal Code § 11164-11166 – Child Abuse or Neglect Reporting Act – California Penal Code 11164-11166Article 2.5. (CANRA) Click Here

Mandated Reporter formMandated ReporterFORM SS 8572.pdf – The Child Abuse

ALL POLICE CHIEFS, SHERIFFS AND COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENTS INFO BULLETIN: Click Here Officers and DA’s for (Procedure to Follow)

You can learn more here California Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Law its a PDF file

Learn More About True Threats Here below….

We also have the The Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) – 1st Amendment

CURRENT TEST = We also have the The ‘Brandenburg test’ for incitement to violence – 1st Amendment

We also have the The Incitement to Imminent Lawless Action Test– 1st Amendment

We also have the True Threats – Virginia v. Black is most comprehensive Supreme Court definition – 1st Amendment

We also have the Watts v. United States – True Threat Test – 1st Amendment

We also have the Clear and Present Danger Test – 1st Amendment

We also have the Gravity of the Evil Test – 1st Amendment

We also have the Elonis v. United States (2015) – Threats – 1st Amendment

Learn More About What is Obscene…. be careful about education it may enlighten you

We also have the Miller v. California – 3 Prong Obscenity Test (Miller Test) – 1st Amendment

We also have the Obscenity and Pornography – 1st Amendment

Learn More About Police, The Government Officials and You….

$$ Retaliatory Arrests and Prosecution $$

Anti-SLAPP Law in California

Freedom of Assembly – Peaceful Assembly – 1st Amendment Right

Supreme Court sets higher bar for prosecuting threats under First Amendment 2023 SCOTUS

We also have the Brayshaw v. City of Tallahassee – 1st Amendment – Posting Police Address

We also have the Publius v. Boyer-Vine –1st Amendment – Posting Police Address

We also have the Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida (2018) – 1st Amendment – Retaliatory Police Arrests

We also have the Nieves v. Bartlett (2019) – 1st Amendment – Retaliatory Police Arrests

We also have the Hartman v. Moore (2006) – 1st Amendment – Retaliatory Police Arrests Retaliatory Prosecution Claims Against Government Officials – 1st Amendment

We also have the Reichle v. Howards (2012) – 1st Amendment – Retaliatory Police Arrests Retaliatory Prosecution Claims Against Government Officials – 1st Amendment

Freedom of the Press – Flyers, Newspaper, Leaflets, Peaceful Assembly – 1$t Amendment – Learn More Here

Vermont’s Top Court Weighs: Are KKK Fliers – 1st Amendment Protected Speech

We also have the Insulting letters to politician’s home are constitutionally protected, unless they are ‘true threats’ – Letters to Politicians Homes – 1st Amendment

We also have the First Amendment Encyclopedia very comprehensive – 1st Amendment

Sanctions and Attorney Fee Recovery for Bad Actors

FAM § 3027.1 – Attorney’s Fees and Sanctions For False Child Abuse Allegations – Family Code 3027.1 – Click Here

FAM § 271 – Awarding Attorney Fees– Family Code 271 Family Court Sanction Click Here

Awarding Discovery Based Sanctions in Family Law Cases – Click Here

FAM § 2030 – Bringing Fairness & Fee Recovery – Click Here

Zamos v. Stroud – District Attorney Liable for Bad Faith Action – Click Here

Mi$Conduct – Pro$ecutorial Mi$Conduct Prosecutor$

Attorney Rule$ of Engagement – Government (A.K.A. THE PRO$UCTOR) and Public/Private Attorney

New Supreme Court Ruling – makes it easier to sue police

Possible courses of action Prosecutorial Misconduct

Misconduct by Judges & Prosecutor – Rules of Professional Conduct

Functions and Duties of the Prosecutor – Prosecution Conduct

Standards on Prosecutorial Investigations – Prosecutorial Investigations

Fighting Discovery Abuse in Litigation – Forensic & Investigative Accounting – Click Here

Criminal Motions § 1:9 – Motion for Recusal of Prosecutor

Pen. Code, § 1424 – Recusal of Prosecutor

Removing Corrupt Judges, Prosecutors, Jurors and other Individuals & Fake Evidence from Your Case

National District Attorneys Association puts out its standards National Prosecution Standards – NDD can be found here

The Ethical Obligations of Prosecutors in Cases Involving Postconviction Claims of Innocence

Mandated Reporter Laws – Nurses, District Attorney’s, and Police should listen up
If You Would Like to Learn More About: The California Mandated Reporting LawClick Here

ALL POLICE CHIEFS, SHERIFFS AND COUNTY WELFARE DEPARTMENTS INFO BULLETIN:
Click Here Officers and DA’s for (Procedure to Follow)

We also have the Hartman v. Moore (2006) – 1st Amendment – Retaliatory Police Arrests
Retaliatory Prosecution Claims Against Government Officials – 1st Amendment

We also have the Reichle v. Howards (2012) – 1st Amendment – Retaliatory Police Arrests
Retaliatory Prosecution Claims Against Government Officials – 1st Amendment

National District Attorneys Association puts out its standards
National Prosecution Standards – NDD can be found here

We also have the Introducing TEXT & EMAIL Digital Evidence in California Courts – 1st Amendment
so if you are interested in learning about Introducing Digital Evidence in California State Courts
click here for SCOTUS rulings

ARE PEOPLE LYING ON YOU?
CAN YOU PROVE IT? IF YES…. THEN YOU ARE IN LUCK!

Removing Corrupt Judges, Prosecutors, Jurors
and other Individuals & Fake Evidence from Your Case