Skip to content Skip to navigation

A Fight To Maintain Our Rights

October 1, 2014
Martin Halloran SFPOA President

On August 11, 2014, a decision was rendered in People v. Superior Court of San Francisco County (Daryl Lee Johnson). The court held that the prosecution must have access to peace officer personnel files in order to identify impeachment evidence under Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83. Under this ruling, prosecutors will now be required to search the personnel file of a peace officer each time the officer is subpoenaed as prosecution witnesses. This opinion makes clear that the prosecution remains ultimately responsible for obtaining and disclosing the information from the officer’s personnel file. This would greatly increase the latitude by which a prosecutor can access personnel files.

The SFPOA believes this decision erodes the rights of peace officers under the Peace Officers Bill of Rights. This ruling is a direct attack on the confidentiality of peace officers personnel records that are maintained by any state or local agency under 832.7(a) PC. This confidential information shall not be disclosed in any criminal or civil proceeding except by discovery pursuant to 1043 or 1046 of the Evidence Code commonly known as Pitchess.

The SFPOA believes that the Court of Appeals interpretation is flawed and contrary to existing state law. I have made the POA’s position known to Chief Suhr and members of his Command Staff. Since this ruling can only be appealed to the California Supreme Court by either City Attorney Dennis Herrera or by District Attorney George Gascon, I sent letters of request to both of them urging their offices to take up this appeal. I have spoken directly to City Attorney Dennis Herrera regarding this important issue, and I believe his office will be moving forward on it. The POA will now wait for an official response from the aforementioned City leaders and/or their departments.