Chambers v. Appellate Division 5/4/06 CA4/1

State: California

Court: 1st District Court of Appeal 1st District Court of Appeal

Docket No: D047661

Case Date: 08/16/2006

Preview:Filed 5/4/06 Chambers v. Appellate Division CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

COURT OF APPEAL - FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

TARIQ CHAMBERS, Petitioner, v. THE APPELLATE DIVISION OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, Respondent;

D047661 (San Diego County Super. Ct. No. GIC856399)

THE SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT, Real Party in Interest.

PROCEEDINGS in mandate after the superior court (Browder Willis and Stephanie Sontag, Judges) declined to order disclosure of Pitchess information and the appellate division (Louis R. Hanoian, Peter C. Deddeh, and Robert J. Trentacosta, Judges) denied petitioner's writ petition. Petition granted.

In his petition, Tariq Chambers contends the trial court erred when it declined to disclose evidence relevant to his defense of excessive force, namely, the identity of a complaining citizen who Chambers's counsel knew to exist by virtue of her assignment to an unrelated case involving the same officer, as well as a report prepared by defense investigators who had interviewed the citizen. We conclude the trial court abused its discretion in withholding disclosure of Pitchess information that is indisputably relevant to Chambers's excessive force defense. We further conclude that, under the circumstances of this case, the protective order mandated by Evidence Code section 1045, subdivision (e)1 does not encompass derivative information generated as a result of a prior successful Pitchess motion as to the same police officer in the unrelated case, and that Chambers is entitled to obtain that information from the prior litigant. Accordingly, we grant Chambers's writ petition with directions set forth below. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In October 2004, Chambers was charged with resisting, delaying or obstructing a peace officer (Pen. Code,

Download Chambers v. Appellate Division 5/4/06 CA4/1.pdf