Pitchess motion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

A Pitchess motion is a request made by the defense in a California criminal case, such as a DUI case or a resisting arrest case, to access a law enforcement officer's personnel information when the defendant alleges in an affidavit that the officer used excessive force or lied about the events surrounding the defendant's arrest. The information provided will include prior incidents of use of force, allegations of excessive force, citizen complaints, and information gathered during the officer's pre-employment background investigation. The motion's name comes from the case Pitchess v. Superior Court.[1]

Context of the case[edit]

The story of Pitchess v. Superior Court is somewhat convoluted. The Los Angeles County Sheriff, Peter J. Pitchess, along with members of his administrative staff, are the case's petitioners, and the Superior Court of Los Angeles County is the respondent, with a man named César Echeverría as the real party in interest. Sheriff Pitchess had sought a writ of mandate to compel the Superior Court to quash its subpoena duces tecum requiring that Pitchess' office produce documents for a trial in which Mr. Echeverría was named as defendant. Mr. Echeverría was being charged at the time with four felony counts of assaulting four sheriff's deputies, and this despite the fact that immediately following the incident he was in an intensive care unit and the officers themselves had sustained no serious injuries. His attorney, Miguel F. García wished to obtain evidence from the Sheriff's Office regarding records of complaints by the public about the propensity of these deputies to use excessive force. The Sheriff's Office had flatly refused to provide such documents. García had then convinced a court to issue a subpoena for them, and the Sheriff's Office, in the form of Sheriff Pitchess, petitioned the Court of Appeals to hold a hearing to have the subpoena "quashed." The petition was unusual in that it came directly from the county sheriff, and so the Court of Appeals readily agreed to hear the petition.[2]:p.45

The Court found, however, that although such records could be classified as "discoverable" by Mr. García, they had to contain complaints that were "sustained" by the police department itself before they would need to be provided. In other words, the police department would have to have a record of a deputy's propensity for or acts of abuse substantiated by the department itself.[2]:p.45

Mr. García then petitioned the State Supreme Court to uphold the subpoena, and it did so in a 7–0 ruling (i.e., with no dissenting justices). Today, the Pitchess motion is one of the 15 or 20 most common motions filed in criminal court in the state of California.[2]:p.47

A defendant's right to information about alleged officer misconduct or dishonesty thus providing information for witness impeachment has since been established by statute in California in sections 1043 through 1047 of the California Evidence Code.[3][4]


A Pitchess v. Superior Court motion can be made by a criminal defendant to discover complaints made against a police officer, and the investigation of those complaints, such that they are contained in the officer’s personnel records. The motions can be made in a California Superior Court under California Evidence Code 1043-1046.[5] Notwithstanding the broad nature of the discovery that the associated court rule and statute provide, getting actual records is problematic. In California, there is a carefully prescribed procedure governing such request, and making disclosure without an order is a crime. The statutory scheme was developed, in part, because law enforcement departments had developed a practice of purging their files concerning misconduct claims made against their officers.[6]

Compliance with Brady is a continuing obligation of prosecutors. Some prosecuting attorney offices have adopted and created specialized procedure and bureaus to meet their burden.[7]

See also[edit]


  1. ^ Pitchess v. Superior Court, 11 Cal.3d 531 (1974)
  2. ^ a b c Vásquez, Carlos, Oral History Interview with Miguel F. Garcia II (Interview transcript), Los Angeles, retrieved 2013-02-05 
  3. ^ California State University: Pitchess Motion[dead link]
  4. ^ Martindale.com: A Criminal Defendant's Pitchess Motion Must Be Supported by a Showing of Good Cause:[1]
  5. ^ Cal. Evid. Code §§ 1043-1046
  6. ^ Steering, Jerry L. "Brady List and Pitchess Motions". Retrieved April 7, 2014. 
  7. ^ "Special Directive 02-08 Brady Protocol". Los Angeles County District Attorney. December 7, 2002. Retrieved April 7, 2014. 

Further reading[edit]

  • Special Litigation Division (January 2012). "Brady v. Maryland Outline" (PDF). The Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia. Retrieved April 8, 2014.