ALFORD v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY (THE PEOPLE), S098233
A protective order required by Evidence Code section 1045(e) must restrict use of information of arresting officers' past misconduct, under Pitchess v. Superior Court, 11 Cal.3d 531 (1974), to the proceeding in which disclosure is sought.
- Decided 02/27/2003
- Published 02/27/2003
Supreme Court of California
Steven J. Carroll, Public Defender, Matthew C. Braner, Gary Gibson and Courtney Cutter, Deputy Public Defenders, for Petitioner Maurice Alford., Craig J. Leff for Petitioner Donny Love., Michael P. Judge, Public Defender (Los Angeles), Albert J. Menaster and Mark G. Harvis, Deputy Public Defenders, as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioner Maurice Alford., Kimiko Burton and Jeff Adachi, Public Defenders (San Francisco), Randall Martin, Chief Attorney, and Stephen L. Rosen, Head Attorney, as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioner Maurice Alford., Casey Gwinn, City Attorney, Anita M. Noone, Assistant City Attorney, Shannon M. Thomas, Carol A. Trujillo and Paul E. Cooper, Deputy City Attorneys, for Real Party in Interest City of San Diego., Paul J. Pfingst, District Attorney, Thomas F. McArdle and Anthony Lovett, Deputy District Attorneys, for Real Party in Interest the People., Steve Cooley, District Attorney (Los Angeles), George M. Palmer, Head Deputy District Attorney, and Brentford J. Ferreira, Deputy District Attorney, as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Parties in Interest., Jones & Mayer, Gregory P. Palmer, Long Beach, and Krista MacNevin Jee for 79 California Cities, California State Sheriffs' Association, California Police Chiefs Association and California Police Officers' Association as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest City of San Diego., Bobbitt & Pinckard, Everett L. Bobbitt, San Diego, and Sanford A. Toyen for San Diego Police Officers Association as Amicus Curiae.
No appearance for Respondent.