California

Overview

California stands out nationally for having taken some of the most substantial legislative and institutional steps toward enforcing Brady and Giglio disclosure obligations. It is one of the few states with statutory mandates for public access to police misconduct records and an explicit legal framework requiring prosecutors to maintain and share information about officers with credibility issues. Yet despite this progress, the implementation remains uneven, and resistance from law enforcement agencies persists—especially in rural counties and sheriff-dominated jurisdictions. With 58 counties and more than 500 law enforcement agencies, California embodies both the promise and the pitfalls of codified candor: a model of reform in theory, with notable gaps in practice.

Brief Description of Legal Landscape

California’s legal structure comprises a unified judiciary, with trial courts in each county, six appellate districts, and a state supreme court. Prosecutors—primarily elected district attorneys—exercise wide discretion but are subject to increasing public scrutiny and legislative mandates regarding disclosure obligations.

The state has made significant reforms in recent years, most notably through Senate Bill 1421 (2019) and Assembly Bill 1506 (2020). SB 1421 opened access to certain categories of police disciplinary records, including dishonesty, sexual assault, and use of force. AB 1506 mandated that the California Department of Justice investigate all police shootings of unarmed civilians. Prosecutors are also bound by Penal Code § 1054, California's discovery statute, as well as by constitutional obligations under Brady and Giglio.

Several counties—Los Angeles, San Francisco, Alameda, and others—maintain “Brady Lists” or “Do Not Call Lists” for officers with histories of misconduct. However, these lists are not universally standardized, and not all counties make them public or share them with defense counsel as a matter of course.

Historical Context

California’s history with police transparency is complicated. During the 20th century, law enforcement agencies enjoyed robust protections under the Peace Officers’ Bill of Rights (POBOR), passed in 1976, which made it nearly impossible for the public—or even other government officials—to access officer misconduct records. For decades, Brady compliance depended entirely on the discretion of prosecutors and the cooperation of police departments.

The 1991 beating of Rodney King and the 1992 Los Angeles riots exposed deep flaws in law enforcement accountability and catalyzed a broader reform movement. Subsequent events—from the Rampart Division scandal of the LAPD in the late 1990s to the police killing of Oscar Grant in 2009—reinforced demands for transparency. Despite incremental changes, it wasn’t until the late 2010s that California took bold legislative action.

Today, California is among the most progressive states in codifying Brady-related reforms, but the efficacy of these reforms remains contested, particularly in less-populated counties where disclosure policies are opaque and resistance to oversight remains strong.

Legal Framework and Precedents

Constitutional Provisions and State Statutes

California’s Constitution guarantees due process rights under Article I, Section 15. These are interpreted in harmony with the U.S. Constitution, including the requirements imposed by Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States. In addition:

• California Penal Code § 1054.1(e) codifies the obligation for prosecutors to disclose exculpatory and impeaching evidence.

• Evidence Code § 1043–1046 governs Pitchess motions, the process by which defense counsel may request access to an officer’s personnel file in court.

• SB 1421 (2019) amended Government Code § 832.7 to make certain categories of police records disclosable without Pitchess motions.

• AB 2761 (2022) and SB 16 (2021) expanded disclosure requirements and timelines, making it easier for journalists and defense attorneys to access records related to dishonesty, bias, and wrongful arrest or prosecution.

Relevant Case Law and Judicial Interpretations

California courts have played a major role in shaping the contours of disclosure:

• People v. Superior Court (Johnson), 61 Cal. 4th 696 (2015), held that prosecutors could not access officer personnel records without a Pitchess motion, limiting the Brady compliance capacity of district attorneys at the time.

• People v. Gutierrez, 2 Cal. 5th 1150 (2017), reinforced that prosecutors must disclose all favorable evidence, even absent a defense request.

• People v. Uribe, 162 Cal. App. 4th 1457 (2008), emphasized that Brady material includes information affecting witness credibility, including police witnesses.

Recent reforms have sought to resolve conflicts between Brady duties and Pitchess motion requirements, effectively carving out a Brady exception to prior confidentiality statutes.

Implementation and Enforcement

Law Enforcement Policies and Training

The California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) oversees minimum training standards for police officers, including legal instruction on constitutional rights and ethics. However, POST does not enforce Brady compliance or maintain any database of officers with credibility issues.

Prosecutors and individual departments have created internal “Brady protocols,” but implementation varies. For example:

• Los Angeles County maintains a confidential list of over 300 officers flagged for credibility issues, but this list is not routinely disclosed to defense counsel unless a judge grants a Pitchess motion or court order.

• San Francisco publishes a redacted version of its “Do Not Call List” and has a written policy requiring regular updates and disclosure to the Public Defender’s Office.

• Riverside and San Bernardino Counties are more opaque, with Brady disclosure policies generally invoked only after defense requests.

Training on Brady/Giglio compliance is included in most prosecutorial offices’ continuing education, but there is no statewide mandate that all law enforcement agencies participate or comply with uniform standards.

Oversight Mechanisms and Accountability Structures

California has multiple oversight structures, but none are fully integrated. POST can revoke officer certification for misconduct under SB 2 (2021), which created a decertification process modeled on national best practices. This process includes a dedicated review board but is still in early implementation stages.

District attorney offices are independently elected and subject to local political pressure. Although State Bar discipline has been imposed in rare cases, most prosecutors face no real consequence for failure to disclose exculpatory or impeachment evidence. Likewise, civilian oversight boards exist in cities like Oakland, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, but these vary widely in authority, scope, and independence.

Case Studies from the State

Significant Cases Illustrating Issues of Candor

1. Rampart Scandal (1997–2000) – Dozens of convictions were overturned after it was revealed that members of LAPD’s anti-gang unit fabricated evidence, beat suspects, and lied in reports. The scandal triggered one of the largest internal investigations in U.S. policing history and exposed massive failures in Brady disclosure across Los Angeles County.

2. People v. Michael Morton (Texas), California Tie-In – Although Morton was exonerated in Texas, the forensic analyst who helped wrongfully convict him was also involved in California cases. His misconduct prompted California’s Attorney General to revisit other convictions, demonstrating how Brady failures transcend state lines.

3. Oscar Grant (2009) – The fatal BART police shooting of Oscar Grant led to intense scrutiny of officer credibility and internal investigation transparency. While not a classic Brady case, the handling of the aftermath demonstrated the impact of public distrust in systems that fail to discipline dishonest officers.

4. Contra Costa DA Brady Policy Reforms (2021) – The Contra Costa County District Attorney's Office adopted a public Brady policy, established a formal review committee, and began notifying defense counsel when law enforcement witnesses had impeachment material in their files—becoming a state leader in disclosure reform.

Outcomes and Implications

These cases catalyzed sweeping legislative reforms but also revealed the persistent structural resistance to transparency. Police unions have fought disclosure laws in court, and departments often delay or redact records aggressively. The state has improved legal access to records, but meaningful accountability—particularly through officer decertification or prosecutor discipline—remains rare. While California has the legal tools to lead the nation in candor, institutional will remains fragmented and politically constrained.

Challenges and Gaps

Identified Issues within the State’s System

• Inconsistent Brady List Policies: No statewide requirement or format exists for maintaining and sharing Brady Lists.

• Resistance from Police Unions: Legal challenges have slowed or weakened implementation of SB 1421 and SB 16.

• Overreliance on Pitchess Motions: Many prosecutors still treat Brady disclosures as conditional on defense requests or judicial intervention.

• Limited POST Authority: The state’s certification body cannot enforce disclosure compliance unless misconduct rises to the level of decertification.

Legislative and Institutional Barriers

Despite SB 1421 and SB 2, transparency efforts face strong institutional resistance. Police unions have filed lawsuits to block or narrow disclosure mandates. Many rural counties lack the resources or political will to maintain robust Brady protocols. Even in progressive jurisdictions, compliance depends more on leadership priorities than statutory enforcement.

Recommendations

Suggested Improvements in Law, Policy, and Practice

1. Standardize Statewide Brady Protocols: Require all prosecutors to maintain and regularly update officer credibility lists, with mandatory cross-county sharing.

2. Enhance POST Oversight: Expand POST’s authority to track, audit, and respond to Brady-related violations by officers and departments.

3. Mandatory Disclosure Audits: Implement annual reviews of each county’s compliance with Brady and Giglio obligations by an independent oversight body.

4. Clarify Legal Duty Beyond Pitchess: Statutorily separate Brady obligations from Pitchess procedures to eliminate confusion and delays.

Recommendations for Enhanced Transparency and Accountability

1. Public Giglio Registries: Create a public-facing registry of officers found to have lied, tampered with evidence, or engaged in perjury, similar to existing use-of-force disclosure databases.

2. Stronger Sanctions for Prosecutorial Violations: Empower the State Bar to issue public reprimands, suspensions, or disbarments for willful Brady violations.

3. Unified Civilian Oversight Model: Establish a statewide civilian review council with the power to investigate misconduct across jurisdictions.

4. Whistleblower Protections: Expand protections for officers and prosecutors who disclose misconduct within their agencies or departments.

Conclusion

California has laid the groundwork for a system of candor and accountability that could serve as a national model—if fully realized. Legislative progress has outpaced institutional follow-through, and without a commitment to uniform enforcement, the promise of transparency risks becoming symbolic. Still, California has proven that reform is possible, and in some counties, it is already working. The challenge now lies in scaling that success statewide—making candor not the exception, but the rule.