CA: Officer’s personnel file could not be obtained to challenge his credibility in a suppression motion

The defendant sought the officer’s confidential personnel file for the purposes of a Pitchess to challenge the officer’s credibility, but he could not make a sufficient showing to get it since the undisputed facts showed probable cause for arrest. Giovanni B. v. Superior Court, 152 Cal. App. 4th 312, 60 Cal. Rptr. 3d 469 (4th Dist. 2007):

To show good cause for discovery of confidential officer information, a Pitchess motion must (among other things) explain the proposed defense and articulate how the requested discovery may be admissible as direct or impeachment evidence in support of the proposed defense. (Warrick v. Superior Court, supra, 35 Cal. 4th at p. 1024.) Here, Giovanni explained the proposed defense, and the relevance of the requested information, was a potential suppression motion that would assert “Trampus and Murgia wrote false information in their police report to justify their detention and pat[-]down of Giovanni [and] [w]ithout the false information, the officers [would] not have been justified in detaining and patting down Giovanni.”

However, Giovanni was detained and placed into temporary custody based in part on his appearing to be underage and on the streets after midnight. Because the officers had (and Giovanni does not contest) this objectively reasonable basis on which to detain and place Giovanni in temporary custody for suspected violation of Chula Vista’s curfew ordinance (see In re Charles C. (1999) 76 Cal. App. 4th 420, 424 [police may place minor in custody for violating curfew]; In re Ian C., supra, 87 Cal. App. 4th at pp. 859-860 [police may place minor in temporary custody for violating curfew and conduct search incident to arrest]), Giovanni cannot contest the validity of the stop and search by asserting the officers’ other observations concerning suspected criminal activity were false and a subterfuge to support the stop. (People v. Woods, supra, 21 Cal.4th at pp. 679-681.) Giovanni’s Pitchess motion did not claim it might reveal information calling into question the accuracy of the officers’ observations that Giovanni was a minor on the streets in violation of curfew, or any information suggesting the officers improperly relied on their observations of his youthful appearance to support the stop. (See In re James D. (1987) 43 Cal.3d 903, 916-917.) Giovanni’s Pitchess motion did not articulate how the officers’ veracity would be admissible on whether, after Giovanni was properly stopped and placed in temporary custody for curfew violation, the officers were permitted to conduct the pat-down search that revealed the screwdriver.

Consent to search was voluntary on totality. The fact that the officer had his gun drawn for just 10 seconds and reholstered when any apparent threat was nonexistent was significant. So was his prior criminal history. United States v. Mendoza, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44647 (W.D. Pa. June 20, 2007):

The length of time of the encounter between defendant and the officers at the time of the consent to search defendant’s person was less than five minutes, and the questioning of defendant was not prolonged or repeated. Defendant exhibited a calm demeanor and was cooperative with the officers. Defendant did not exhibit any mental or physical handicaps that would effect his ability to consent to the search of his person and defendant’s age was not such that it would effect his ability to consent to the search of his person. Finally, defendant’s background includes a prior arrest and conviction on drug charges.

911 call from a six year old child justified officers’ warrantless entry into plaintiff’s home, and they were entitled to qualified immunity. Morton v. Lunde, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44523 (D. Idaho June 19, 2007).*

Plaintiff’s version of the facts of her arrest showed it was without probable cause and with excessive force, and she stated a claim for relief. Hayhurst v. Upper Makefield Twp., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44762 (E.D. Pa. June 19, 2007).*