I am curious how various jurisdictions handle requests for discovery of law enforcement officers' personnel files.
I have a capital case in which the defense wants to inspect the personnel file of every officer who worked on the case, or at least have the trial court conduct an in camera inspection on the same. As you might imagine, that's a lot of files from several different agencies that I'd just as soon not have to locate and turn over. I found Local Govt. Code Sec. 143.089 which makes a city police officer's personnel file confidential. However, that doesn't help me much since all my officers are deputies, Rangers, or other State officers. Does anyone know of any statutory provision similar to that set forth in 143.089 that protects the personnel files of officers other than city police?
I can see where the personnel file of an officer may be relevant if the officer is the victim, on a first aggressor/self defense type issue, and the caselaw seems suggest that an in camera inspection is required in that situation. However, that's not the case here, this just seems like a fishing expedition for impeachment. I would normally just object to this request on it being overbroad and overly burdensome, etc., but since it's a death penalty case....

Under the Rules of Evidence (and the provisions for filing a subpoena), a defendant must show the evidence he seeks to obtain/admit is relevant. And under those same Rules, the use of prior bad acts is an impermissible basis for impeachment (just as it is an impermissible basis for saying someone is telling the truth). So, it shouldn't matter what is in the officer's personnel files, it isn't relevant to the trial. The proper place to check for relevant impeachment evidence is the witness' statement and criminal history.

So, I would seek a motion to quash (the subpoena) and oppose the discovery request. Otherwise, there is a never-ending search for inadmissible evidence.

Of course, it would be a good idea, I would think, to ask your officer's about their backgrounds so that you don't get any surprises in trial.

I also think it is more and more a good idea to file a motion in limine explaining the impeachment rules to the defense and asking the judge to hold the defendant to following them. It is a slippery slope to not fight these requests.

Watch out for Open Records Request. I think this may be an exception to Sec. 143.089 under the "as required by law" language. Local defense attorneys use these on occasion. You do not necessarily get notice if the agency getting the open records request doesn't let you know so you can end up with some surprises if you do not talk with your officers. I believe most of the personnel information is available via an open records request with the exception of info like addresses, SS#, ETC. There are some AG opinions that will clarify what is available. Additionally, the requirements John talks about for subpoenas do not apply.

Tuck

In fact "information about public employees' job performance or the the reasons for their dismissal, demotion, resignation" is not excepted from disclosure under Chapter 552, Gov't Code and thus presumably not by any other law. See ORD 444 at 5-6 and 405 at 2-3. The mere fact that evidence is not admissible under Evid. Rule 608(b) may not be sufficient to exclude it from Brady-Bagley either. See Keeter, No. 10-00-169-CR (01/08/03), rehearing denied. Still, I would agree with John that the documents sought must "constitute or contain evidence material to a matter involved in the action", that it is the defendant's burden to show "good cause" for the production, and that a subpoena should not be a way around the restrictions in art. 39.14. See Mead, 759 S.W.2d 437; Reece, 878 S.W.2d 326-7; Peca, 799 S.W.2d 426.

Given the possibility of the defense to obtain these records without the DA's knowledge, it is all the more important to file the motion in limine and ask the judge to order the defense to approach the bench before mentioning anything to the jury.

Trying to use the PIA as an end-around to avoid the strictures of the Code of Criminal Procedure's discovery provisions (or the Rules of Civil Procedure, for that matter) is nothing new. We've had defense lawyers try it periodically; probably as much to test the waters as anything. When it happens, we request an AG decision and assert the section 552.103 (litigation) exception. The AG has yet to disagree with us.

I agree with all that has been said. The judge should be asked to review any sought police records in camera for relevancy. A motion in limine is also called for. Also, 143.089 of the Local Government Code applies only to police departments under state civil service; it does not cover all police agencies.