2012-00126774-CU-PO

Neal Bownds vs. City of Citrus Heights

Nature of Proceeding:       Motion for Discovery of Police Officer Personnel Records

Filed By:    Lusk, Michael

Plaintiff Neal Bownds (“Bownds”) Pitchess motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in
part as follows:
This case involves allegations of excessive force by peace officers.  Bownds alleges
that officers of Defendants City of Citrus Heights and Citrus Heights Police Department
(collectively “Defendants”) used excessive force against him, detained him, searched
his possessions without sufficient justification and falsified their reports of the incident.
He also alleges that officers conspired against him to violate his civil rights.  Bownds
alleges that he suffered numerous injuries as a result.  Bownds’ complaint contains
several causes of action (denominated “counts”) for violation of his civil rights under 42
U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985.  Bownds also advances state-law causes of action for
violation of civil rights [CC § 52.1], assault and battery, intentional infliction of
emotional distress and defamation.

Pursuant to Evidence Code §§ 1040 et seq., Bownds moves for discovery of
information in the personnel and internal-affairs records relative to Citrus Heights
Police Officers Carl Bookamer, Joseph Rangel and Thomas Lamb.  He also seeks
personnel records relative to Citrus Heights Police Sergeant Jason Baldwin and
Records Supervisor Lisa Gresham.

Penal Code Section 832.7 generally protects peace officers’ personnel files, as well as
the confidential information contained therein, from disclosure.  Evidence Code §
1043, however, permits a party seeking such personnel records or information to move
for disclosure.  The moving party must establish good cause.  (Cal. Evid. Code § 1043
(b)(3).)  By way of affidavit, a moving party shows good cause by demonstrating the
materiality to the subject matter of the lawsuit and a reasonable belief that the agency
possesses the type of information sought.  (People v. Sanderson (2010) 181 Cal.App.4
th 1334, 1339-1340.)  Good cause in the context of a Pitchess motion is a “relatively
relaxed” standard designed to “insure the production” for trial court review of “all
potentially relevant documents.”  (Id. at 1340 [citation omitted].)  However, in order to
demonstrate good cause, the moving party must provide a “specific factual scenario”
establishing a “plausible factual foundation” for the disclosure sought.  (City of San
th
Jose v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4   1135, 1146-1147.)

Preliminarily, the court notes Defendants’ argument that, to the extent the motion is
predicated upon allegations of excessive force used in the course of arrest, the motion
should be denied because Bownds failed to attach copies of the underlying arrest
reports.  (See Cal. Evid. Code § 1046.)  Because Defendants attached copies of the
reports to the Opposition, and thus cured any deficiency in the moving papers, the
court rejects the argument.

The incident/arrest reports indicate the following, among other things: (1) On February
26, 2012, the Department received a report that a man was throwing rocks at cars; (2)
Officers Bookamer, Lamb and Ranger located Bownds, and detained and handcuffed
him, during which time force was used; (3) Sgt. Baldwin was not present during the
scuffle, but he was present when Bownds was placed into a WRAP restraint at the
scene of the detention, and he spoke to Bownds at some point after Bownds was
handcuffed; (4) Sgt. Baldwin made the decision to release Bownds and file charges
later through the District Attorney’s Office; (5) Sgt. Baldwin or Ms. Gresham approved
the reports written by Officers Bookamer, Ranger and Lamb.

Bownds has filed a declaration with the motion.  In the declaration, he asserts that
officers used excessive force against him, interrogated him without providing any
Miranda warnings, searched his phone and wallet, and told him that no charges were
being filed.               Based on the papers submitted and applicable legal standards, the court concludes
that, with respect to Sgt. Baldwin and Officers Bookamer, Lamb and Rangel, Bownds
has established a specific factual scenario establishing a plausible factual foundation
for the disclosure of (1) personnel records as well as citizen complaints, internal-affairs
and disciplinary records relating to allegations (including Bownds’ current allegations)
of excessive force, illegal or false arrest/imprisonment, and dishonesty and (2) records
identifying any prior employment in law enforcement.  Defendants’ custodian of
records is therefore ORDERED to locate and produce all such records for an in-
camera review.  In making this part of the ruling, the court is aware of Defendants’
argument that none of Sgt. Baldwin’s records should be produced because he was not
part of Bownds’ arrest and had minimal contact with Bownds.  In light of Bownds’
allegation that he was injured as part of a conspiracy, and given that Sgt. Baldwin
signed off on other officers’ incident reports, the court rejects the argument.  However,
to the extent Bownds seeks categories of Citrus Heights Police Department records
other than the two categories permitted in this paragraph (as to Sgt. Baldwin or
Officers Bookamer, Lamb and Rangel), the motion is DENIED.

The balance of the motion, which is aimed at records pertaining to Ms. Gresham, is
DENIED.  Defendants assert that Ms. Gresham is neither a peace office nor a
custodial officer and, therefore, that her records are not subject to the Pitchess
procedures.  Bownds has not disputed this assertion, which the court construes as his
concession of the merits.

Conclusion

No later than January 10, 2014, Defendants’ custodian of records shall place this
matter on the court’s afternoon ex parte calendar and, following the procedures
established in People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1228-1230, produce the
records ordered above for an in-camera review.  Before the custodian makes the ex
parte appearance, Defendants’ counsel shall notify Bownds’ counsel of the date of the
appearance and, pursuant to Local Rule 1.12, Bownds’ counsel shall procure a court
reporter to transcribe the in-camera review.

The minute order is effective immediately.  No formal order pursuant to CRC 3.1312 or
further notice is required.