| |
People of the State of California,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Defendants. )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
MOTION FOR PRODUCTION OF PERSONNEL RECORDS, REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY
NOTICE OF MOTION
Notice is hereby given pursuant that on August 29, 2007, at 9.00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the Monterey County Superior Court, located at 240 Church Street, the Defendant will move the Court to disclose personnel records of Salinas SVSP Correctional Officer Cop.
This motion will be based upon the included points and authorities and attached crime/incident reports. Notice is given to California Attorney General, the Salinas Valley Prison and the Monterey County District Attorney's Office.
FACTS
On May 25, 2006, a fight broke out between two Northerners, Mr. Cop and Mr. Defendant and six Fresno Bulldogs. Of the thirteen correctional officers responding, Sergeant Cop was the only one who saw Mr. Defendant throw an inmate manufactured weapon. Specifically Sergeant Cop wrote in his report and later testified at preliminary hearing that he saw inmate Cop and Defendant "rush" inmates Cop and Victim and attack them. From this attack, Sergeant Cop testified that a small riot arose involving four additional Bulldogs against a total of two Northerners.
Other guards' statements were inconsistent with Sergeant Cop's version of events:
1) Officer Cop reported only Cop and Victim fighting with "closed fists". Officer Cop reported no weapons thrown.
2) Officer Cop reported four Bulldogs "rush" the yard to engage in "mutual" combat with two Northerners. Officer Cop reported no weapons thrown.
3) Officer Cop reported that Cop approached Victim and then struck him. At that point, Officer Cop reported that "several inmates" rushed the two and began fighting "with clenched fists" but he could not tell "who was fighting who." Officer Cop did report that he saw a Bulldog, Cop, throw what appeared to be a weapon.
4) Officer Cop reported that he saw eight inmates fighting with "closed fists." Officer Cop reported seeing Defendant but made no mention of a weapon thrown by him or any other inmate.
5) Officer Cop reported that he saw Defendant and Cop walk along a track as inmates xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx entered the yard. Across the way were two additional Bulldogs, Cop and Cop. Apparently, Defendant and Cop walked between the six Bulldogs when suddenly Cop began attacking "the other inmates with his fists." At the same time, Bulldogs Cop, Cop, Cop, Cop and Cop all attacked Defendant. Logically speaking, that leaves inmate Cop fighting Victim alone. Officer Cop did not report any weapons being used or dropped during the fight but found a weapon in the shoe of inmate Cop.
6) Officer Cop reported that Northern inmates Defendant and Cop "exchanged words" with Bulldog inmates Victim and Cop; at which point Victim "took a swing" at Cop. Subsequent to that, the other four Bulldogs joined the fight. Officer Cop made no mention of any weapon.
7) Officer Cop arrived after the fight had been stopped. Following a physical search of Defendant, he noted a puncture wound on Defendant's left buttocks indicating an attack from behind.
8) Officer Cop observed "approximately seven inmates engaged in mutual combat." Officer Cop made no mention of any weapon.
9) Officer Cop reported "a group of Hispanic inmates" fighting with "clenched fists." Officer Cop made no mention of any weapons.
10) Officer Perez reported Cop and Defendant approach three other inmates. "Words were exchanged" and the inmates "began fighting striking (sic) each other in the upper torso area with clinched fist." No mention was made in Officer Perez' report of who started the fight or whether any weapons were used or discarded.
11) Officer Picazo reported seeing several inmates "striking each other with closed fist." Officer Picazo made no mention of who started the fight and made no mention of knives.
The reports as written by witnessing officers could be summarized as follows:
1) Six officers said that the fight was mutual combat. These were Officers Cop, Picazo, Perez, Cop, Cop, Cop.
2) Two Officers testified that the Bulldogs attacked. These were officers Cop and Cop.
3) Two Officers testified that Inmate Cop only started the fight. These were Officers Cop and Cop.
4) Only Officer Cop testified that both Defendant and Cop attacked the Bulldog inmates.
5) Three officers wrote that they found four weapons. These were Officers Cop, Cop and Cop. Only Officer Cop wrote that inmate Defendant had a knife.
6) Seven officers reported no weapons.
On May 25, 2006, Officer Cop reported that four Bulldog inmates attacked two northern inmates. (see Attachment 1.) On June 7, 2006 Officer Cop wrote a memo to Officer Cop. (see Attachment 2.) In the memo, Officer Cop criticized Officer Cop for writing a report that contradicted his own. On the same day, Officer Cop responded to Officer Cop in writing that the "affiliation" of the inmates was explained to him and that therefore the Northerner inmates attached the Bulldogs. (see Attachment 3.)
Officer Cop correction makes absolutely no sense. Officer Cop wrote that (4) men attacked (2) men. The affiliation makes no difference. The fact that Officer Cop directed Officer Cop to change his story and the fact that Officer Cop changed his story so poorly is deeply suspicious.
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
The Defense may obtain information regarding citizen complaints of specific assaultive behavior, prejudice or other misconduct on a particular officer's part, and the reports of internal police investigations of those complaints. (Cal. Evid. Code § 1054(a); Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 89 Cal.App.3d 531, 537.) The Defense may also obtain discovery about any discipline imposed as a result of the internal police investigations. (Cal. Evid. Code § 1043 et sec. (codifying Pitchess, City of San Jose v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 47, 55.)
Information subject to disclosure is not limited to cases involving altercations between officers and arrestees, but may include other evidence of misconduct that is material to the subject matter in the pending litigation. (People v. Memro (1985) 38 Cal.3d 658, 680-681.)
The standard governing the discovery of personnel records is not whether the information discovered is ultimately
admissible at trial, but whether the records are material to
the subject matter in the pending litigation. (Larry E. v. Superior Court (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 25.)
The standard for a trial court to grant a Pitchess motion is a "relatively relaxed standard." (Warrick v. Superior Court (City of Los Angeles) (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1011, 1016.) The defendant must file a motion supported by affidavits showing "good cause for the discovery," first by demonstrating the materiality of the information to the pending litigation, and second by "stating upon reasonable belief" that the police agency has the records or information at issue. (§ 1043, subd. (b)(3).) This two-part showing of good cause is a "relatively low threshold for discovery." (Id. at 1019.) In the present action, the defense need not present affidavits since the "good cause" required can be found directly from the attached reports.
The Defense therefore requests the personnel files of Officer Paul Cop and Officer M. Cop maintained pursuant Cal. Pen. Code § 832.5. These records are discoverable according to Cal. Pen. Code § 832.7.
ARGUMENT
1) In order to protect Officers Cop and Cop, the Court may review the officers' personnel files in chambers. Thus, the interests of the officers are protected.
2) Officer Cop's statement to Officer Cop could not be clearer. Officer Cop made a factual statement that he saw four men attack two men. Officer Cop then "corrected" Officer Cop' version of events.
Officer Cop attempt to "correct" his statement made is even less plausible. Officer Cop wrote that he was "unable to identify the individuals involved in the incidence affiliation." (sic) Whatever the affiliations of the persons involved, it makes no difference as to whether four men attacked two. The patent taint of dishonesty presented here is clear and more than satisfies the discovery standard laid out in Warrick. This taint can only be dispelled by a thorough review of the officers' files by the Court.
WHEREFORE the Defense requests the Officer's personnel files, records of discipline, complaints, formal discipline and anything else related to Officer Cop's or Officer Cop use of excessive force in the facility as maintained by the Personnel Office of the Salinas Valley State Prison and/or the California State Prison System.
I served this at the Monterey County District Attorney's Office, the Salinas Valley State Prison, and the California Attorney General's Office on:
|
|
 |
Site Map
The information on this California Criminal Defense Attorneys / Law Firm website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this or associated pages, documents, comments, answers, emails, or other communications should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information on this website is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing of this information does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.
|
|
