Warrick v. Superior Court
29 Cal. Rptr. 3d 2, 112 P.3d 2, 35 Cal. 4th 1011 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish good cause for the discovery of a police officer's personnel records, a criminal defendant must describe a specific factual scenario of officer misconduct that is plausible, meaning it is internally consistent and could or might have occurred, not that it is credible or reasonably probable.
Facts:
- On April 23, 2002, LAPD Officers Quezada, Lopez, and Ramirez were patrolling an area known for narcotics activity.
- The officers observed defendant Warrick standing by a wall looking at a plastic baggie containing off-white solids.
- When the officers exited their patrol car, Warrick fled on foot.
- According to the officers, as Warrick fled, he discarded numerous off-white lumps which were later determined to be 42 rocks of cocaine.
- After a short pursuit, officers arrested Warrick, who was found with an empty baggie, $2.75 in cash, and three porcelain spark plug chips.
- Warrick, through his counsel, contended that he was in the area to purchase cocaine and ran from the officers due to an outstanding parole warrant.
- Warrick claimed that the rocks of cocaine were discarded by another person, the actual seller, as he ran past, and that the officers falsely attributed possession of the drugs to him.
Procedural Posture:
- The State charged Warrick in trial court with one count of possessing cocaine base for sale.
- Warrick filed a pre-trial Pitchess motion for discovery of the arresting officers' personnel files.
- The trial court denied the motion, finding Warrick had failed to show good cause because his factual scenario was 'implausible'.
- Warrick filed a petition for a writ of mandate with the intermediate Court of Appeal, which was summarily denied.
- The California Supreme Court granted review and transferred the matter back to the Court of Appeal with directions to issue an order to show cause.
- The Court of Appeal, after briefing and argument, again denied Warrick's petition, holding that his factual scenario was not 'plausible,' which it defined as 'credible' or 'believable'.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a criminal defendant establish good cause for an in-chambers review of a police officer's personnel records by providing a specific factual scenario of officer misconduct that could have occurred, even if that scenario appears implausible or lacks a motive?
Opinions:
Majority - Kennard, J.
Yes. A criminal defendant establishes good cause for discovery of a police officer's personnel records by setting forth a plausible factual scenario of officer misconduct, which means the scenario is one that might or could have occurred. The standard for good cause is a 'relatively low threshold' and does not require the defendant to present a credible or believable account, nor does it require the trial court to weigh the evidence or determine if the defendant's version of events is persuasive. The court reasoned that requiring a defendant to show a 'reasonably probable' scenario would improperly task the trial court with making a determination of guilt or innocence at the discovery stage. Here, Warrick's declaration, which denied possession and asserted that the officers falsely accused him, presented a specific, internally consistent scenario that supported his defense. This denial of the police report's assertions established a plausible factual foundation sufficient to trigger the trial court's in-chambers review of the officers' records for relevant prior complaints.
Dissenting - Brown, J.
No. A defendant does not establish good cause when their factual scenario is 'utterly unconvincing' and runs counter to common sense and experience. The majority's holding deprives the term 'plausible' of any substantive content by reducing it to mean merely 'could have occurred.' A trial judge must be able to exercise some discretionary judgment and reject factual assertions that are patently absurd. Warrick's story that he was at the scene to purchase drugs with only $2.75 and that the real seller conveniently discarded 42 rocks of cocaine at his feet while he was being pursued by police defies logic. The majority's credulous approach upsets the careful balance the Legislature struck between a defendant's discovery rights and the privacy interests of police officers.
Analysis:
This decision significantly lowers the threshold for defendants seeking to discover police officer personnel records under a Pitchess motion. By defining 'plausible' as merely 'could have occurred' rather than 'believable' or 'credible,' the court prevents trial judges from acting as gatekeepers who weigh the credibility of a defendant's claims at the discovery stage. This precedent makes it substantially easier for the defense to trigger an in-chambers review of officer files, thereby increasing access to potential impeachment evidence regarding officer misconduct. The ruling prioritizes a defendant's right to discovery over officer privacy interests at this initial procedural step, ensuring that all potentially relevant information is reviewed by the court.
Unlock the full brief for Warrick v. Superior Court