California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Warrick v. Superior Court, 112 P.3d 2, 29 Cal.Rptr.3d 2, 35 Cal.4th 1011 (Cal. 2005):
This specificity requirement excludes requests for officer information that are irrelevant to the pending charges. (See, e.g., People v. Hustead, supra, 74 Cal. App.4th at p. 416, 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 875 [prior complaints of excessive force by arresting officer "irrelevant" after charge of resisting arrest was dropped and remaining charge was evasion of arrest in an automobile].) And it enables the trial court to identify what types of officer misconduct information, among those requested, will support the defense or defenses proposed to the pending charges. This inquiry establishes the statutorily required materiality prong of the good cause showing that a defendant must make to receive in-chambers review of potentially relevant officer records.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.