Of Los County of Los Angeles Civil Grand Jury Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center 210 West Temple Street •*

information given to defense attorneys. While the District Attorney's Office of Discovery Compliance provides training to new hires, or by courthouse location, or to specialized units and on-going to all DA's, the provision of "information" is not standardized. RESPONSE: The Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office disagrees wholly with this finding. The Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office standardized procedure is to routinely and consistently provide exculpatory and impeaching information to the defense. The Discovery Compliance System (DCS) is composed of two separate databases: Brady and Officer and Recurrent Witness Information Tracking System (ORWITS). The standardized approach with Brady information is to automatically disclose the information in each and every case at every stage of the proceeding. In contrast, because ORWITS is merely an informational database which consists of unsubstantiated, unfounded, and uncorroborated allegations, disclosure of such information is not mandated under Brady. (See Wood v. Bartholomew (1995) 516 U.S. 1; Weatherford v. Bursey (1977) 429 U.S. 545; People v. Jordan (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 349.) Thus, DDAs have been given the discretion to determine whether ORWITS information should be disclosed depending on the relevancy of the information in a given case. LADA's standardized approach with regard to ORWITS information is for the handling DDA to discuss the matter with a supervisor, review its relevancy, and determine whether this speculative information should be disclosed to the defense. The Los Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department

Brady officers to the District Attorney in Los Angeles County. OIG Response: The OIG agree with this finding. AB 1421 was signed by Governor Brown making police officer records of shootings, use of

force and some misconduct disclosable to the general public. While policing agencies and their unions have attempted through the courts to say: they may not be disclosed, they may not retroactively be disclosed (prior to the implementation date of January 1, 2019) and that they should be limited to a number of years. OIG Response: The OIG agrees with this finding Some policing agencies including Inglewood and Long Beach began shredding documents

in December 2018. The Los Angeles Police Chief announced that he would not release records prior to January 1, 2019 but only records going forward. OIG Response: The OIG agrees with this finding The Los Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department

have not routinely turned over Brady officers to the District Attorney. The District Attorney stated that they learn about questionable officers from reports in the news or through other means, but not directly from the policing agencies. In turn, information that the DA's Office receives has inconsistently been shared with defense attorneys. RESPONSE: The Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office agrees in part and disagrees in part with this finding. Law enforcement agencies are prohibited by current case law from directly disclosing personnel information to the District Attorney's Office. (People v. Superior Court (Johnson) (2015) 61 Ca1.4th 696, 714.) Any and all Brady information received or discovered about an officer is automatically disclosed to defense attorneys in all cases in which that officer is involved.

Protective Orders requested by the DA, that may limit a defense attorney's use of information for one case when the same officer may be a witness in another case, often results in a limited ability to provide an adequate defense. RESPONSE: The Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office wholly disagrees with the finding that the use of protective orders results in a limited ability to provide an adequate defense. The Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office's paramount obligation is to protect the rights of the accused and the individual rights of the victims and witnesses involved in each case. The Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office's standardized practice is for Brady evidence to be automatically disclosed to the defense without restriction and in the absence of a protective order. A protective order does not preclude the accused in any case from receiving and using that information in one's defense. Information that is not categorized as Brady and is not public must be protected by law, under Penal Code Section 832.7. A protective order on non-Brady, nonpublic information only limits the ability to share that information beyond the criminal case itself. Further, every criminal defendant has a right to file a Pitchess motion, which further provides access to police personnel information under Penal Code Section 832.7 or a California Public Records Act Request pursuant to Senate Bill 1421. Ultimately, the accused's rights are paramount, but a protective order covering non-public, unsubstantiated information effectuates the release of information to the accused while, at the same time, protecting the rights of others.

The final disposition of the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriff's (ALADS) vs. County of Los Angeles; Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department: Jim McDonnell, currently before the California Supreme Court, as well as the litigation around the implementation of AB1421 will impact the availability of information and personnel files regarding police misconduct. OIG Response: The OIG agrees with this finding.