In a significant departure from prior law, the California Supreme Court has ruled that peace officers may have access to personnel records in disciplinary hearings via a Pitchess motion. The decision in Riverside County Sheriff’s Department v. Stiglitz will allow Deputy Kristy Drinkwater to obtain discovery that may support her disparate treatment argument, in which she claims she was fired for falsification of payroll forms, while 11 other employees engaged in the same conduct and were not fired.

In the past, courts have held that hearing officers in administrative disciplinary hearings have no authority to grant Pitchess motions because they are not mentioned in the evidence codes authorizing Pitchess motions. The Supreme Court looked past that language and considered the legislature’s intent in making available Pitchess discovery as well as the intent behind the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (Gov. Code, § 3300 et seq.). The court determined the literal reading of the Pitchess statutes is inappropriate because it results in unfairness. A peace officer may not receive an adequate defense against discipline merely because the venue is administrative, rather than a court. The court determined that the intent under the law of Pitchess as well as POBRA is undermined unless the hearing officer has the authority to order discovery under Pitchess.

Comment: This is a significant—and welcomed—development for peace officers facing discipline. Before this week’s ruling, there was no way for officers appealing discipline to obtain confidential peace officer personnel records to show they had been treated differently than their fellow officers. Under the Court’s ruling, the right exists regardless of whether the memorandum of understanding permits discovery or access to personnel files. The hearing officer also now has the ability to issue orders asking the court to compel production of such records and to conduct a review of confidential peace officer records before releasing the records to the requesting officer. The denial of such orders may be appealed by filing an administrative mandamus petition in superior court.

If you have any questions, please contact Jennifer Stoughton at jennifer@majlabor.com.