Court Rejects Police Officers’ Plea for Investigative Reports

The state Supreme Court, citing the need for public confidence in police-misconduct probes, ruled Thursday that law enforcement officers have no right to obtain investigative reports and complaints before being questioned by authorities.

The justices, ruling in a Pasadena case, held 6 to 1 that under state law such disclosure was not necessary to ensure “fundamental fairness” in internal-affairs investigations. If such access were granted, the court said, it could jeopardize the effectiveness of misconduct inquiries.

“Disclosure before interrogation might color the recollection of the person to be questioned or lead that person to conform his or her version of an event to that given by witnesses already questioned,” Justice Joyce L. Kennard wrote for the majority.

Justice Edward A. Panelli, the lone dissenter, contended that officers should receive such material to help them refresh their recollections and to help officials better determine the truth of the allegations.

The ruling resolved a sharp dispute between a group of California officials and a coalition of public-safety officers’ organizations.

In a written brief, the city of Los Angeles and 27 other cities and counties urged the high court to bar pre-interrogation access to make sure police corruption, brutality and insubordination do not go undetected.

The Los Angeles Police Protective League, joined by other law officer groups, said such access was necessary to protect accused officers against biased or false complaints by arrestees, defendants, supervisors or political officeholders. The case arose from a dispute between the Pasadena Police Officers Assn. against the city of Pasadena over a departmental investigation into charges involving officer Dennis Diaz, the association president. Diaz was accused of obtaining an “unauthorized” list of leaders in a “neighborhood watch” program to send them letters seeking support for the association in a wage dispute with the city.

Before responding to questioning, Diaz sought but was refused notes from departmental investigative interviews. Diaz and the association then filed suit.