Crawford v. Dominic
27 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 1072, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12771, 469 F. Supp. 260 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In civil rights actions alleging police misconduct, a plaintiff's demonstrated need for police personnel and disciplinary files to prove supervisory liability outweighs a general assertion of executive privilege, requiring the government to make a specific claim of privilege for each document, which the court will then review in camera.
Facts:
- Officer Paul Dominic, a Philadelphia police officer, shot Alexander Crawford.
- Officer William O’Neill, another Philadelphia police officer, was present during the shooting.
- Crawford alleged that the officers' supervisors, Captain William Murphy and Police Commissioner Joseph O’Neill, were liable for failing to properly supervise the officers.
- Crawford claimed the City of Philadelphia was also liable for the acts of its police officers and their supervisors.
Procedural Posture:
- Alexander Crawford filed a lawsuit in federal district court against two police officers, their supervisors, and the City of Philadelphia under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law.
- During discovery, Crawford filed a motion to compel the production of documents, including the personnel and disciplinary files for Officers Dominic and O'Neill.
- A district court judge granted most of Crawford's discovery requests but denied the motion as it related to the two officers' files, without providing a reason for the denial.
- Crawford filed a renewed motion to compel discovery of the same police files.
- The defendants argued against the renewed motion, claiming it was untimely and that the files were protected by executive privilege.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Are police personnel files, including disciplinary records and citizen complaints, discoverable in a § 1983 civil rights lawsuit alleging police misconduct, despite a claim of executive privilege by the government?
Opinions:
Majority - Pollak, District Judge
Yes. Police personnel files are discoverable because a plaintiff's need for such information in a civil rights case is fundamental and generally overcomes a blanket assertion of executive privilege. The court reasoned that federal discovery rules are meant to be broad, especially in civil rights actions where official misconduct is alleged. The information sought by Crawford—disciplinary records, citizen complaints, and reports of prior gun firings—was vital to proving his claims against the supervising officers and the City, as it could establish their knowledge of the officers' alleged propensity for violence. The court rejected the defendants' general claim of 'executive privilege,' stating that such a privilege is not absolute and must be balanced against the plaintiff's need for the evidence. The proper procedure is for the head of the department to formally assert the privilege with particularity for specific documents, after which the court will conduct an in camera (private) inspection to determine whether the government's interest in confidentiality outweighs the plaintiff's need for disclosure.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a crucial procedural framework for handling discovery disputes over sensitive police files in civil rights litigation. It rejects a per se or absolute privilege for such documents, instead mandating a case-by-case balancing test that heavily favors disclosure when the information is central to the plaintiff's claim, particularly regarding supervisory liability. By requiring a senior official to formally assert the privilege and then subjecting that claim to in camera review, the court created a durable standard that prevents police departments from using blanket claims of privilege to stonewall discovery. This approach has become a common practice in federal courts, significantly impacting the ability of plaintiffs to obtain evidence needed to hold police departments and their supervisors accountable.
