What is Pitchess?

Transcription

What is Pitchess?

PEACE OFFICER PRIVILEGES
IN CIVIL LITIGATION:
An Introduction to the Pitchess Procedure
Presented by
Tony M. Sain, Esq. | tms@manningllp.com
MANNING & KASS,
ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP
MANNING & KASS, ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP
Five Questions
Five Questions:
1. What is a peace officer “personnel file” record?
2. What is my Police Department supposed to do
when someone seeks peace officer personnel
file records in a civil (or criminal) case?
3. What are the normal exemptions from the
Pitchess procedure (bypasses)?
4. What happens when the officer is adverse to
the Police Department in a civil lawsuit?
5. What protection does the officer or agency
have in a federal court lawsuit?
The Pitchess Privileges:
• Set of state laws that control how Peace Officer
Personnel File records can be Discovered or
Disclosed.
– Cal. Evid. Code §§ 1040-1048
– Penal Code §§ 832.5-832.8
– Pitchess v. Superior Ct. (1974)
11 Cal.3d 531
The Pitchess Privileges:
• Peace Officer Records Presumed to be
Confidential
• Unless the Pitchess procedures are followed:
– Peace Officer Records May Not Be Discovered or
Disclosed.
– Unless an Exception Applies.
Pitchess Privileges Primer:
1. What is a Personnel File Record?
What is a Personnel File?
#1 Mistake
Public Entities and Officers Make =
Assuming That If You Put It in a Folder
Marked “Personnel File” Then the Pitchess
Privilege Applies
1. Personnel File Defined
WHAT it is…
NOT WHERE it is
kept
1. Peace Officer “Personnel File” Records-Info
• personal data
– including marital status,
– family members,
– educational and employment history,
– home addresses or
– similar information
• medical history
• election of employee benefits
• employee advancement, appraisal, or
discipline
1. Peace Officer “Personnel File” Records-Info
• appraisal or discipline
• complaints, or investigations of
complaints
– concerning an event or transaction in which
he or she participated, or perceived...
– that pertains to the manner in which the
officer performed his/her duties
• And “any other information the
disclosure of which would constitute an
unwarranted invasion of personal
privacy” for the officer
Practice Tip: Personnel File Record
Q: If the officer’s Pitchess-protected
information is obtainable from another
source, is a state court litigant still
required to go through the Pitchess
procedure before conducting discovery or
making disclosure of such information?
Yes.
The Pitchess privileges apply to personnel
file information even if the information at
issue is contained – or otherwise obtainable
– from sources outside of the peace officer’s
physical or digital personnel file.
Q: A state court civil litigant seeks to
depose the officer about the officer’s
disciplinary history. Must the litigant get a
Pitchess order before the officer is
required to answer those deposition
questions?
Yes.
The Pitchess statutes “protect personnel
records and information from such records”
because there “would be no purpose to
protecting such information in the personnel
records if it could be obtained by the simple
expedient of asking the officers for their
disciplinary history orally.”
Do the Pitchess statutes control how long a public entity
must retain an officer’s personnel file records?
No
The Pitchess statutes do not
contain specific requirements
about a minimum or maximum
length of time for record
retention, but...
Yes
Because records related to
complaints are not discoverable if
they relate to events more than 5
years before the date of the
incident at issue in the state court
case...
Public entities should consider limiting their peace officer
personnel records retention to ~5 years’ worth.
See Cal. Evid. Code § 1045(b)(1); Cal. Penal Code § 832.5(b).
2. What is my Police Dept.
Supposed to Do When a Litigant
Seeks Peace Officer Personnel
File Records-Information?
2. What to Do With Pitchess Discovery?
Pitchess Privilege Issues Tend to Arise:
• When a State Court Civil or Criminal
Litigant Tries to Discredit a Peace Officer
• When a Peace Officer is Adverse to his
own or former Public Entity/Police
Department
• When a Non-Party Seeks Protected
Officer Info
2. What to Do With Pitchess Discovery?
Regardless of Whether the State Court
Lawsuit is Criminal or Civil...
– The Pitchess Procedure is the EXCLUSIVE
means for discovery-disclosure of peace
officer personnel file records or information.
– Unless an EXCEPTION Applies... (more on
that later).
2. Overview of the Pitchess Procedure
• Public Entity/Police Dept. Should Verify:
• Notice-Standing and Service Rules were Followed
• Threshold for In Camera Review was Met
– Specificity
– Good Cause
– Materiality (Manifest Necessity)
– Reasonable Belief re Possession-Existence
• Court Properly Conducts an In Camera Review
• Court Properly Limits and Protects Discovery and/or
Disclosure
2. Pitchess Motion Procedure:
Notice-Standing and Service Issues
2. Pitchess Procedure: Notice & Service
• Litigant Must
– File a Pitchess Motion in Court
– Serve Notice of Pitchess Motion on the
Agency With Custody of the Personnel File
• Litigant Should Also Serve Notice of the
Pitchess Motion on the Officer Whose
Records Are Sought When the Officer is
a Party to the Action
• The Custodial Agency Must Notify the
Officer Whose Records Are Being Sought
by the Motion
• Both the Officer and the Custodial
Agency Have Standing to Oppose the
Pitchess Motion
But, Only the Custodial Agency Has the
Right to Waive a Hearing on the Pitchess
Motion and Proceed Directly to the In
Camera Review Phase
Threshold Requirements
2. Pitchess Procedure: Threshold
• Officer Personnel File Records and
Information are Presumed to be
Confidential.
• To Overcome that Presumption (and get to
the In Camera review phase), the State Court
Litigant Must Meet the Pitchess
Procedure’s Threshold requirements.
Threshold Elements to Overcome Pitchess
Confidentiality Presumption:
• Specificity
• Good Cause
• Materiality & Manifest Necessity
• Reasonable Belief re PossessionExistence
Specificity Requirement
• Describe the Type of Records sought
• Identify the Officer whose records-information
is/are sought
• Identify the Governmental Agency which has
custody-control
Rationale: To prevent fishing expeditions
for info that is irrelevant to the pending
issues of the case.
Good Cause Requirement – Pitchess
Motion Must Include:
• Sworn Declaration
• Plausible Factual Scenario of Officer
Misconduct
• Theory of Admissibility
Materiality & Manifest Necessity
Requirement – Pitchess Motion Must:
• Materiality
– Show a “Logical Link” Between the Information
Sought and the Claims At Issue
• Manifest Necessity
– Show that Without a Pitchess Order, the
Information Sought Is “Essential” and Cannot Be
Discovered or Disclosed from Non-Privileged
Sources
Pitchess Procedure: Threshold
Possession Requirement – Pitchess
Motion Must State:
• Reasonable Belief that the Government
Agency Specifically Identified Has Custody
• At the In Camera Review Hearing, IF the
Agency Does NOT Actually Have the
Records-Information Sought, It Must
Demonstrate Such Absence to the Court
The In Camera Review
2. Pitchess Procedure: In Camera Review
Once the Moving Party Meets the Pitchess
Threshold, the Court MUST Review the
Personnel File Records of the Officer
Identified In Camera
– In Camera = In Chambers, NOT in Open
Court
Pitchess Motion = Two-Step Process:
1. Hearing on the Pitchess Motion
– For Court to Determine If the Threshold is Met
– IF the Threshold is Met...
2. The In Camera Review Session
– For Court to Identify Records that are
Specified in the Successful Pitchess Motion
and Discoverable Under the Pitchess Statutes
Practice Tip:
• Some Courts Expect to Hold the In Camera
Review on the Same Date as the Motion
Hearing, But This is Not Required.
• The Agency Custodian of Records Should
Not Attend the Motion Hearing Unless the
Court Orders It, BUT...
• The Agency Custodian MUST Attend the
In Camera Review Session
The Agency’s Custodian of Records Should
Bring All Records Potentially Within the
Scope of the Pitchess Motion to the Court
for Review.
Practice Tips:
• Bring Hardcopies, NOT Digital Records
• Put the Apparent Target Records in a Binder for
the Court to Peruse...
• BUT Have the Entire Personnel File Available in
Case the Court Demands It
Make Sure the Court Conducts the Record
Review In Chambers, NOT in Open Court
Practice Tip: In Camera Review
Practice Tip:
• Some Courts Resist Doing the Review In
Camera...
• BUT, It is Required by Law.
Make Sure that Only Authorized
Personnel are Present In Camera During
the Record Review:
– Judge
– Court Reporter (Court Staff Also Permitted)
– Agency’s Custodian of Records
– Officer(s) Whose Records Are Being
Reviewed
– Persons Whom the Privilege Holder(s) Want
to Have Present
Practice Tip:
• The Privilege Holder Should Specifically
State (Not Request) That He/She/It Wants
to Have Its Attorney Present for the In
Camera Review:
– The Attorney Should be Able to Protect the
Privileges During the In Camera Review
Better than the Custodian Alone.
People Who Are NOT Permitted to be Present or
Within Earshot During the In Camera Review:
• Moving Party
• Moving Party’s Attorney/Representative
• Others Who Are Not on the Authorized
List
• On the Record
• Court Reporter
• Custodian of Records
Must Be Under Oath
• Court Must Verbally
Identify Documents
• Conducted Outside
Hearing of Movant etc.
• Transcript Must Be
Sealed
• Mandatory Exclusions – The Court Must Exclude
from a Pitchess Discovery-Disclosure Order:
– Info re Complaints re Conduct 5+ Years Before
Incident at Issue in the Action
– Conclusions, Thought Processes, Analyses, and
Factual Inferences of any Investigator of a Complaint
of Officer Misconduct
– Facts So Remote as to be Virtually Useless (of No
Practical Benefit)
• The Pitchess Order – Production
Component:
– Make Sure the Order is Specific About
Which Records or Information Must be
Discovered to (or May be Disclosed by) the
Moving Party, IF Any Are Identified During the
In Camera Review
Practice Tip:
Some Courts Will Order the Custodian to
Produce the Specified Records; Other
Courts Will Copy the Identified Records and
Produce them After the In Camera Review is
Completed.
The Pitchess Order – the Protective
Order Component:
Mandatory
Pitchess Order Should
Include the Mandatory
Requirement that “records
disclosed or discovered may
not be used for any purpose
other than a court
proceeding pursuant to
applicable law.”
Recommended
A Privilege Holder Should
Also Make a Good Cause
Showing that the Records:
• May Only Be Used by the
Movant in the Action at
Issue; and
• Must Be Returned or
Verifiably Destroyed at
the Action’s End
The Pitchess Order – Disclosure v.
Discovery:
• The Pitchess statutes, and some of the
related case law, suggest that “discovery”
and “disclosure” are two different things in the
Pitchess procedure:
– “Discovery” may mean pre-trial productiondisclosure to movant
– “Disclosure” may mean publication to the jury at
trial
Practice Tip
Make Sure the Pitchess Order Clarifies
Whether the Records at Issue Must Only Be
Produced to the Moving Party, or Whether
the Moving Party is Permitted to Publish
Them at Trial Without Further Order (Or
Both)
3. What Are the Normal Exemptions from
the Pitchess Procedure?
(Bypasses)
3. Pitchess Procedure: Normal Exemptions
1. The Criminal Prosecutor’s Investigation
2. Release of Complaint to Complainant
3. Discretionary Release of Anonymous
Data
4. Rebuttal Facts After False Statement to
Media
3. Criminal Prosecutor’s Investigation
Exception
Pitchess statutory procedure does not apply
to investigations or proceedings conducted
by:
• Grand Jury
• District Attorney’s Office
• Attorney General’s Office
3. Release of Complaint to Complainant
Government Agency
is Required to
Release a Complaint
to the Person Who
Made the Complaint
No Pitchess Motion/Order Required
3. Anonymous Data Exception
• A Government Agency is Permitted, but
Not Required to Disclose Data Regarding:
– Number, Type, or Disposition of Complaints
– Made Against Its Officers
– IF the Data Does Not Identify the IndividualsOfficers
– No Pitchess Motion/Order Required
3. False Facts About Discipline Made by an
Officer to the Media
• Where an Officer (or His Representative)
Publicly Makes a False Statement
About an Investigation or the
Imposition of Discipline Against that
Officer
• A Government Agency is Permitted, but
Not Required to Disclose Facts in the
Officer’s Personnel File to Specifically
Refute the False Statement(s) Made
4. What Happens Under Pitchess When the
Officer is Adverse to the Police Dept.?
4. Pitchess : Officer v. Police Dept.
The Officer May Be in an Adversarial
Position to the Custodial Police Agency
When:
• The Officer Seeks to Review Internal Affairs
File Records Not Stored in His/Her
Personnel File
• The Officer is a Party to a Lawsuit Against
the Custodial Police Agency (& Public Entity)
• The Officer Seeks to Testify as an Adverse
Witness Against the Custodial Police Agency
Officer Review of Internal Affairs File Records NOT Stored in
His/Her Personnel File:
• While the Officer is Employed by the Custodial Government
Agency, the Officer Is Entitled to Reasonable Inspection of
His/Her Own Personnel File Without a Pitchess Motion/Order
• Officer Only Entitled to Inspect His/Her Personnel File
Records Containing or Constituting Adverse Comments
• But NOT the Underlying Investigative Records (Particularly
Where Such Records Are Stored Separately from the Officer’s
Personnel File)
• Where the Officer is Not Entitled to His/Her Own Personnel
File Records, the Officer May Need to File/Serve a Pitchess
Motion
4. Officer v. Police Dept.: The Emerging
Exception fromPitchess for the
Custodial Government Agency
The Custodial Agency
Discovery Exception:
• Question: What Happens
When the Agency With
Custody of the Officer’s
Personnel File Wants to
Review or Use that
Information Against the
Officer in Litigation?
Example: When the Custodial
Public Entity is Up Against the
Officer as an Adverse Party or
Adverse Witness.
The Custodial Agency
Discovery Exception:
Michael v. Gates (1995)
38 Cal.App.4th 737
Key Facts
• Former/retired LAPD captain testified as an
Expert for Plaintiffs in a Civil Suit
• No Deposition of Expert
• No Pitchess Motion Filed/Heard
• City Reviewed Personnel File Prior to Trial
• City Tried to Use Pers. Info at Trial, But
Could Not
• Michael then Sued City for Pitchess
Violation
• The Trial Court Decided for the City: No
Violation
• Michael Appealed
• The City Prevailed on Appeal
Issues Presented:
• Must a Custodial Government
Agency Go Through the Pitchess
Procedure Before It (or Its
Attorneys) Can Review Officer
Personnel Files In Its Possession?
• Must a Custodial Government
Agency Go Through the Pitchess
Procedure Before It (or Its
Attorneys) Can Use Officer
Personnel File Information Against
the Officer in Litigation?
Issues Presented (Reformed by
Court):
• Must the Custodial Agency Go
Through the Pitchess Procedure to
Conduct “Discovery” Regarding
Officer Personnel File Information In
Its Possession?
• Must the Custodial Agency Go
Through the Pitchess Procedure
Before Making Otherwise UnExcepted “Disclosure” of Officer
Personnel File Information In Its
Possession?
Key Rationale:
• Under Pitchess, “Discovery” =
Inspection of Records and Other
Materials in the Possession of an
Adverse Party in Litigation
• Purpose of the Pitchess Statutes Is
to “Regulate Use of Peace Officer
Personnel Records in Civil and
Criminal Proceedings”
Key Rationale:
• Where the Custodial Agency
Already Possesses the
Information at Issue, It Is NOT
Conducting “Discovery” Under
Pitchess
• Where the Custodial Agency is
Not Conducting “Discovery” of
Pitchess-Privileged Matter, the
Custodial Agency Is NOT
Required to Go Through the
Pitchess Procedure
Implications:
• Where a Custodial Agency
Deposes an Officer About
Information Already In the
Agency’s Possession, the
Agency Is NOT Conducting
“Discovery” Under the
Meaning of the Pitchess
Statutes
Implications (cont’d):
• The Rationale Behind Barring
Deposition on Pitchess-Privileged
Information Thus Operates In
Reverse On Matters That Are Not
Protected by the Pitchess
Privilege
• Just as the Officer Should Not Be
Forced to Reveal Information
Protected by the Pitchess
Privilege Just Because the Quest
for Such Information Comes Via a
Deposition...
Implications (cont’d):
• Because the Pitchess Statutes
Are Not to be Construed to
Require Absurd Results, the
Custodial Agency Should Not Be
Forced to Get a Pitchess Order
to Depose an Officer About
Information It Already Possesses
• As Long As the Deposition Does
Not Seek Information the Agency
Does Not Possess, the
Deposition Would Not Be
“Discovery” Under the Pitchess
Statutes
Implications – Open Question:
• Whether or not a Pitchess
Order is Required Where the
Custodial Agency Seeks to
Depose the Officer About
“Personnel File” FactsInformation the Agency Does
Not Possess, but Which Are
Related to or Underlying the
Facts-Information the
Agency Already Possesses
Implications:
• The Michael Court Also Implied
That Its Decision Might be
Different If the Trial Court Had
Allowed the Pitchess-Privileged
Matter to Be Used at Trial
– The Michael Court Thus Implied
That a Pitchess Order Might Have
Been Necessary If the Custodial
Agency Sought to Disclose the
Pitchess-Privileged Matter to
the Jury at Trial
Aftermath:
• Other Courts Evaluating the
Issue or Applying the Michael
Holding Have Noted that
Although the Pitchess Statutes
Permit the Custodial Agency to
Waive the Need for a Hearing
on a Pitchess Motion and to
Review Personnel File
Information In Its Possession
Without a Pitchess Order...
Aftermath:
• Because the Pitchess Statutes Do
Not Permit the Agency to Waive
the Requirement for a Motion or
In Camera Review Altogether...
– Govt. Alone May Waive Right to
Hearing on Pitchess Motion
• A Pitchess Order is Likely
Required Before Disclosure of
Personnel File to the Jury
– (or Entities Other Than the
Custodial Agency and Its
Attorneys)
Aftermath – Key Cases to Review:
• Zanone v. City of Whittier (2008)
162 Cal.App.4th 174, 187
• Gonzalez v. Spencer (9th Cir.
2003) 336 F.3d 832, 837-838
• People v. Gwillim (1990) 223
Cal.App.3d 1254, 1269-1270
• People v. Superior Ct.
(Gremminger) (1997) 58
Cal.App.4th 397, 404-407
• Attorney General Opinion, 79
Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 185, 193-195
(1996)
Key Take-Away #1:
• Custodial Public Entities
(and/or their Attorneys) Do
Not Need a Pitchess Order
to Review an Officer’s
Personnel File Information In
Its Possession Even If the
Purpose of the Review is
Adverse to Officer’s Interests
(i.e., to Impeach the Officer
at Trial)
Key Take-Away #2:
• Custodial Public Entities (and/or
their Attorneys) Should Not Need
a Pitchess Order to Question (or
Depose) an Officer About the
Officer’s Personnel File
Information IF that Information is
Already In Its Possession
– It’s Not “Discovery” Privileged by
Pitchess If the Entity Already
Possesses the Information at Issue
– The Pitchess Statutes Do Not Bar
Officer Questioning Where the
Pitchess Privilege Does Not Apply
Key Take-Away #3:
• Custodial Public Entities (and/or their
Attorneys) Probably Do Need a
Pitchess Order to Examine an
Officer/Witness at Trial About the
Officer’s Personnel File Information In
Its Possession
– If an Officer’s Personnel File
Information is to be Disclosed to the
Jury at Trial (or to other unauthorized
persons), Through Testimony or
Exhibits, the Public Entity Likely Must
Go Through the Pitchess Process
Before Such Disclosure Even for
Personnel File Information Already In
Its Possession
Liability for Custodial Agency Breach of the Pitchess
Procedure:
FAQ
• If the Public Entity Violates the Pitchess
Statutes, Does the Affected Officer Have a
Right to Sue on That Basis?
• If the Custodial Agency Discloses or
Conducts Discovery of Pitchess-Privileged
Information Without a Pitchess Order, Can
the Officer Bring a Potentially Valid Claim?
Liability for Custodial Agency Breach of the Pitchess
Procedure:
If the Public Entity Violates the Pitchess Statutes,
Does the Affected Officer Have a Right to Sue on
That Basis?
No.
Yes.
There is no private right of
action (no cause of action) for
violation of the Pitchess privileges
by the custodial government
agency.
A cause of action for the tort of
invasion of privacy could be
based on a disclosure of
Pitchess-privileged matter, in
violation of the Pitchess statutes,
where the officer had a
reasonable expectation of privacy
in the matter at issue.
Other Available Relief?
Writ of Mandate to Prevent the Agency from Releasing
Information in Violation of the Pitchess Statutes in the First Place.
Practice Tip: Officer v. Police Dept.
Custodial Government Agencies Should:
• Consider Formatting any Motion to
Compel as a Pitchess Motion – If an
Adverse Officer Refuses to Answer
Questions Related to Custodial Personnel
File Information at a Deposition
– Or Consider Making a Pitchess Motion Before
Deposing the Adverse Officer
• Plan on Bringing a Pitchess Motion
Before Examining an Adverse OfficerWitness At Trial About Personnel File
Information in the Agency’s Possession
• Provide Training to Records Custodians,
Police Supervisors, and Attorneys
Representing the Custodial Public Agency
About the Requirements of the Pitchess
Procedure
– To Reduce the Risk of Successful Invasion of
Privacy Claims
5. What Protections Do the Officer or
Agency Have in Federal Court?
5. Officer Protections in Federal Court
• Question #1: My Case is in Federal Court, Do
I Need to Follow the Pitchess Procedure?
• Short Answer = NO
• No Pitchess Motion or Order Required for Discovery of
Peace Officer Records By Any Party in a Federal Case
• No Pitchess Motion or Order Required for Disclosure of
Peace Officer Records by Any Party in a Federal Case
• Why Not?
– Because Federal Privileges, NOT State-Law
Privileges, Control in Federal Cases.
• See Fed. R. Evid. 501.
• Question #2: Does That Mean the Officer
or the Custodial Government Agency Has
NO Protection for its Officer’s Personnel
File Records?
• Short Answer = NO
• Why?
– Because There Are Analogs of the Pitchess
Privileges in Federal Privilege Law.
Pitchess Privilege
Analogs in Federal
Court:
• Right to Privacy
• Official Information
Privilege
• ExecutiveDeliberative Process
Privilege
• Law Enforcement
Investigation Privilege
Pitchess Privilege Analogs:
Right to Privacy:
• Where a Party has a
Reasonable Expectation
of Privacy in Information...
• And Party Objects to
Disclosure...
• Federal Court will Balance
– Need for Disclosure v.
– Constitutional Interest in
Privacy
• Officer’s Pitchess Privileges
MAY be Considered in the
Balancing
Pitchess Privilege
Analogs: Official
Information:
• Protects an Agency’s
Official But Confidential
Records
– Examples:
– Personnel File Records
– Internal Affairs Records
Pitchess Privilege
Analogs: DeliberativeExecutive Process:
• Protects an Agency’s
Decision-Making
Processes:
–
–
–
–
–
Analyses & Opinions
Evaluations
Drafts
Recommendations
Proposals
Pitchess Privilege Analogs:
Official Information and
Deliberative-Executive Process:
• Rationale of Both Privileges:
• To Avoid Discouraging
Citizens from Providing
Confidential Information
to the Govt./P.D.
• To Avoid Discouraging
Agencies from Honest and
Candid Self-Evaluation, To
Improve Services
Pitchess Privilege Analogs: Official
Information and DeliberativeExecutive Process – Both:
• Involve Balancing
• Do Not Protect Purely Factual
Information (Where Severable
From Analyses)
• Require Showing of Specific
Need for the Protected
Information
• Should Cause Court to Do In
Camera Review, But...
• Federal Courts Often Skip the
In Camera Review re such
privileges
Pitchess Privilege Analogs: Law
Enforcement Investigation:
• Usually Bars Disclosure of
Facts and Investigatory Files
• While the Investigation is Still
Ongoing-Incomplete
• Rationale = To Protect Ability
of Law Enforcement to
Investigate Potential Crimes
• Court Balances:
– Need for Disclosure v.
– Potential Harm to the
Investigation
Take-Aways re Federal Officer & Agency Record
Privileges:
• Generally Weaker Than the Pitchess Privileges
• The Federal Privileges Favor Discovery-Disclosure
• Whereas, the Pitchess Privileges Presume Confidentiality
• The Federal Pitchess Analogs Rely Upon
Balancing the Litigant’s Interests Against the
Privilege-Holder’s Interests
• In Camera Review is Usually Optional
• Once Privileged Matter is Produced, There is No
Automatic Procedural Obstacle to Use at Trial
by the Recipient
Five Questions We’ve Answered:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
What is a peace officer “personnel file” record?
What is my Police Department supposed to do when
someone seeks peace officer personnel file records in a
California state court civil (or criminal) case?
What are the normal exemptions from the Pitchess
procedure (bypasses)?
What happens when the officer is up against (adverse to)
the Police Department in a civil lawsuit? (Emerging Trends)
What protection does the officer or agency have in a federal
court lawsuit?
With These Answers, You Should Be Able to Manage the
Process of Pitchess Discovery With More Confidence, Less
Risk, and More Effective Results.
Unanswered Questions?
• Q & A Time...
– Please also see our handout:
• Includes Extensive Analysis and
• Case Law Authority
PEACE OFFICER PRIVILEGES
IN CIVIL LITIGATION:
An Introduction to the Pitchess Procedure
Presented by
Tony M. Sain, Esq. | tms@manningllp.com
MANNING & KASS,
ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP

What is Pitchess?

Transcription

Similar documents

Please click here to the registration form

Manning Stainton team - Macmillan Cancer Support

snookie`s cookies

LIDL Skibereen

1 Tan Rallt Street, Machynlleth, Powys, SY20 8BE Asking Price

(x) 405 years ago Saturday 3rd of October 1609 32-year

annual report

Immobili di Prestigio Srl 00198 Rome, Via Po 37 +39 06 85305436

Case Study: Calzedonia Spa