IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO

DIANA MARIA TERAN, B341644

Petitioner, Court of Appeal No.
v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS Superior Court No.

ANGELES COUNTY. 24CJCF02649
Respondent,

PEOPLE OF THE STATE

OF CALIFORNIA,
Real Party in
Interest.

Document received by the CA 2nd District Court of Appeal.

APPLICATION OF THE CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT
COMMISSION FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY
SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT TO FILE AMICUS
CURIAE BRIEF AND PROPOSED AMICUS
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR
WRIT OF PROHIBITION
Robert C. Bonner Sean K. Kennedy
State Bar # 41718 State Bar # 145632
333 S. Grand Ave., 50th Floor LMU Loyola Law School
Los Angeles, CA 90071 919 Albany St., FH 245
Tel.: (213) 229-7535 Los Angeles, CA 90015
Email: Tel.: (213) 736-8302
[email protected] Email: [email protected]

Attorneys for Amicus Curiae

Civilian Oversight Commission
for Los Angeles Sheriff’s
Department

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES ........................................ 5

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF IN

SUPPORT OF WRIT OF PROHIBITION ............................................... 6

AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF WRIT OF PROHIBITION

ON BEHALF OF MS. DIANA TERAN CURIAE .................................. 9

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 9
STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS ............................................. 14
ARGUMENT ....................................................................................... 15
I. Applying Section 502(c)(2) to a Prosecutor Who Shares Public
Court Records with Another Prosecutor to Determine Whether

Document received by the CA 2nd District Court of Appeal.

Those Records Constitute Brady Material Criminalizes Brady
Compliance. ..................................................................................... 15
II. This Prosecution Will Inhibit Meaningful Civilian Oversight of
Law Enforcement .......................................................................... 18
CONCLUSION.................................................................................... 24

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ...................................................... 25

PROOF OF SERVICE ............................................................................ 26

2
 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Cases
Assoc. for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v. Superior Court,
8 Cal.5th 28 (2019) .............................................................. passim
Brady v. Maryland,
373 U.S. 83 (1963) ............................................................... passim
Carrillo v. County of Los Angeles,
2012 WL 12884899 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 12, 2012) .................... 13
Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST) v.
Superior Court,
42 Cal.4th 278 (2007) .................................................................. 17
Giglio v. United States,
405 U.S. 150 (1972) ....................................................................... 9
Hurvitz v. Hoefflin,
84 Cal.App.4th 1232 (2000) ........................................................ 17
Kyles v. Whitley,
514 U.S. 419 (1995) ....................................................................... 9

Document received by the CA 2nd District Court of Appeal.

Long Beach Officers Assoc. v. City of Long Beach,
59 Cal.4th 59 (2014) .................................................................... 17
People v. Aquino,
2005 WL 3086694 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 2005) ............................. 14
United States v. Agurs,
427 U.S. 97 (1076) ......................................................................... 9
Warrick v. Superior Court,
35 Cal.4th 1011 (2005) ................................................................ 16

Statutes
Cal. Evid. Code §1054.1(e) ............................................................... 9
Cal. Evid. Code §1043 .................................................................... 16
Cal. Evid. Code §1045 .................................................................... 16
Cal. Pen. Code § 502(c)(2) ...................................................... passim
Cal. Pen. Code § 832.7 .............................................................. 16,17
Cal. Pen. Code § 832.8 .............................................................. 16,17
Los Angeles County Code Title 3, Chapter 3.79, § 3.79.020 ........ 7

Court Rules
Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.200(c) .................................................... 6
Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(c) .................................................. 25
3
Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.208(e) .................................................... 5
Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.488 ........................................................ 5

Other Authorities
Brady’s Blind Spot: Impeachment Evidence in Police Personnel
Files and the Battle Splitting the Prosecution Team,
67 Stan. L. Rev. 743 (2015)......................................................... 22
“Don’t Elect Me”: Sheriffs and the Need for Reform in County Law
Enforcement,
104 Va. L. Rev. (2018) ................................................................ 19
Judging Innocence,
108 Colum. L. Rev. 58 (2008) ..........................................................10
Letter of Amicus Curiae Supporting Petition for Review in
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v. Superior Court,
B28067, Reported at
13 Cal.App.5th 413 (September 28, 2017) ................................... 11

Document received by the CA 2nd District Court of Appeal.

4
 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES

The Civilian Oversight Commission for the Los

Angeles County Sheriff’s Department is not a party to the
underlying action. Pursuant to Sections 8.208(e) and 8.488 of
the California Rules of Court (“Rule”), the Civilian Oversight
Commission certifies that it knows of no other person or
entity that has a financial or other interest in this case.

Dated: Feb. 17, 2025 Sean Kennedy

Sean Kennedy

Attorneys for Amicus Curiae

Civilian Oversight Commission

Document received by the CA 2nd District Court of Appeal.

5
 APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF WRIT OF PROHIBITION

THE PROPOSED AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF WOULD

ASSIST THE COURT IN DECIDING THIS MATTER

Pursuant to Rule 8.200(c) of the California Rules of Court,

the Civilian Oversight Commission for Los Angeles County
Sheriff’s Department (“COC”) respectfully applies for permission
to file an Amicus Curiae brief in support of Diana Teran’s
petition for a writ of prohibition. Further, pursuant to Rule
8.200(c)(3), no party or counsel for any party authored the
proposed Amicus Curiae brief, nor did any outside entity fund its
preparation. This application is timely under Rule 8.200(c)(1).
Amicus contends that the proposed Amicus Curiae brief

Document received by the CA 2nd District Court of Appeal.

will assist the Court in deciding the matter by clarifying the legal
authority of Teran as well as other prosecutors to use public
records to fulfill their constitutional duty to disclose exculpatory
evidence including law enforcement misconduct. Further, this
brief will address how this prosecution chills voter-mandated
civilian oversight of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s
Department, as well as other police accountability efforts.
Since Teran’s indictment, members of the LASD and
oversight bodies for the county have referenced the threat of
criminal prosecution when refusing to share confidential
information the COC needs access to perform its oversight
function. As a result, the COC cannot access information the
Commission needs to adequately respond to the ongoing crisis
surrounding the proliferation of deputy gangs within the
6
department, use of force incidents, issues within the LASD’s
complaint process, or any other issue reported to the COC by the
community. This prosecution threatens to further limit the COC’s
access to confidential information, as partner agencies such as
the Office of the Inspector General articulate reticence to share
information with the Commission under the looming threat of
prosecution.
INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE
The COC was created in 2016 by the Board of Supervisors
“to improve public transparency and accountability to the Los
Angeles Sheriff’s Department by providing robust opportunities
for community engagement, ongoing analysis and oversight of the

Document received by the CA 2nd District Court of Appeal.

Department’s policies, practices, and procedures, and advice to
the Board of Supervisors, the Department, and the public.” Los
Angeles County Code Title 3, Chapter 3.79, § 3.79.020. In 2020,
the voters passed Measure R to grant the COC more independent
authority to investigate and subpoena witnesses and documents
to ensure that the commissioners had all the necessary
information to effectuate meaningful oversight of the LASD. 1
The COC rarely files amicus briefs and has never
previously done so in a criminal prosecution. However, the
commissioners unanimously approved of filing this amicus brief
over the objection of the County Counsel because the COC is
deeply committed to ensuring that the LASD is warning

1Approximately seventy-three percent of all Los Angeles County

voters supported Measure R.
7
prosecutors about deputy sheriffs who have a history of
dishonesty, excessive use of force, and other misconduct that
reflects on their credibility. The COC also has a strong interest
in opposing legal impediments to the LASD sharing confidential
documents with COC ad hoc committees that can shed light on
ongoing concerns within the LASD and help achieve meaningful
civilian oversight of law enforcement in Los Angeles County.
The proposed brief is enclosed.
Respectfully submitted,

Dated: Feb. 17, 2025 Sean Kennedy______

Robert Bonner
Sean Kennedy

Document received by the CA 2nd District Court of Appeal.

Attorneys for Amicus Curiae
Civilian Oversight Commission

8
 AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION

INTRODUCTION
Diana Teran is being prosecuted for her good-faith efforts
to ensure the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office was fully
apprised of needed information that would enable them to comply
with the prosecution’s constitutional duty to disclose material
exculpatory evidence, as required by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S.
83 (1963). In the context of Brady disclosure, “exculpatory
evidence” includes information that could be used to impeach the
credibility of prosecution witnesses, including law enforcement
witnesses. Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154-155 (1972).

Document received by the CA 2nd District Court of Appeal.

Because it may be difficult to know before trial what evidence
will ultimately prove material, “the prudent prosecutor will
resolve doubtful [Brady] questions in favor of disclosure.” United
States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 108 (1076). Exculpatory evidence
that was suppressed by the police and is therefore unknown to
the trial prosecutor is still attributable to the prosecution. Kyles
v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 437 (1995) (prosecutor has a duty to
“learn of any favorable evidence known to others acting on the
government’s behalf in the case, including the police”).
Section 1054.1 of the Penal Code states, “The prosecuting
attorney shall disclose to the defendant … exculpatory evidence.”
Cal. Pen. Code § 1054.1(e). Section 1054.1(e) expands the Brady
rule in California, requiring a prosecutor to disclose to the
defense any exculpatory evidence, not just material exculpatory

9
evidence.
In applying Brady to confidential police personnel files, the
California Supreme Court has stated, “There can be no serious
doubt confidential personnel files may contain Brady material.
An officer may provide important testimony in a criminal
prosecution. Confidential personnel files may cast doubt on that
officer’s veracity. Such records constitute material impeachment
evidence. …These are not close questions.” Assoc. for Los Angeles
Deputy Sheriffs v. Superior Court (ALADS), 8 Cal.5th 28, 51
(2019).
Despite Brady and its progeny, the LASD has a history of
suppressing evidence of deputy sheriffs’ dishonesty, excessive use

Document received by the CA 2nd District Court of Appeal.

of force, and other misconduct that reflects on their credibility. 2
Because Brady violations are one of the leading causes of
wrongful convictions, 3 the COC has long advocated that the

2See, e.g., Corin Knoll, Ben Poston, and Maya Lau, Must Reads:
An L.A. County Deputy Faked Evidence. Here’s How His
Misconduct Was Kept Secret in Court for Years, L.A. Times (Aug.
9, 2018) (documenting myriad instances in which LASD failed to
notify prosecutors that a deputy sheriff had sustained findings of
dishonesty and misconduct).
3 The National Registry of Exonerations at the University of

Michigan tracks all exonerations in the U.S., as well as causes of

those exonerations. According to the Registry’s current database,
150 of 289 exonerations in California—approximately 52% of all
known exonerations in the state—involved Brady violations. See
NRE Database, available at
https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/about.aspx.
See also, Brandon L. Garrett, Judging Innocence, 108 Colum. L.
Rev. 58, 119 (2008) (examining 200 DNA exonerations and
10
LASD adopt policies and procedures that promote Brady
compliance.
For example, the COC in September 2017 filed an amicus
letter urging the California Supreme Court to grant review of an
intermediate appellate court holding that the Pitchess statutes
prohibit a Sheriff from compiling a Brady list and giving Brady
alerts to the District Attorney to ensure that prosecutors were
being warned about deputy sheriffs with credibility problems.
Letter of Amicus Curiae Supporting Petition for Review in
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v. Superior Court,
B28067, Reported at 13 Cal.App.5th 413 (September 28, 2017),
available at

Document received by the CA 2nd District Court of Appeal.

https://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/supdocs/1028751_Item3B-
AttachmentAmicusLetter-DeputyMisconductList.pdf.
After the California Supreme Court reversed the lower
court, the COC passed a unanimous resolution “strongly
recommend[ing] that the LASD develop a custom, policy, and
practice of actively maintaining a Brady list which should be
shared, to the full extent permitted by law, with the Los Angeles
District Attorney’s Office.” Los Angeles County Sheriff Civilian
Oversight Commission Resolution re Brady List, available at
https://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/supdocs/BradyResolution-
10-18-2019.pdf. The LASD never followed the recommendation.
COC special hearings revealed substantial evidence of some

finding that the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence in

37% of the cases).
11
deputy sheriffs joining troubling deputy gangs, which encourage
members to engage in dishonest behavior and excessive uses of
force, as well as to resist constitutional policing reforms. The COC
in February 2023 recommended that “Sheriff Luna and his
designees should consult with the District Attorney’s Office to
devise an appropriate procedure for the Department to notify the
District Attorney’s Office that a deputy is participating in a
prohibited Deputy Gang or Deputy Clique so that prosecutors can
make the required [Brady] disclosures, if any, to the defense.”
Special Counsel’s Report and Recommendations to the COC
Regarding Deputy Gangs and Cliques in the Los Angeles County
Sheriff’s Department, Rec. no. B(4) at p. 51 (Feb. 2023), available

Document received by the CA 2nd District Court of Appeal.

at
https://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/commissionpublications/rep
ort/1138014_DeputyGangsSpecialCounselReporttoCOC3.2.2023.
PDF.PDF.
Despite these recommendations, the LASD over time
staunchly resisted adopting reforms to improve their role in
Brady compliance. While then-Sheriff Jim McDonnell sought to
adopt more rigorous policies to address these concerns, including
defending the importance of disclosing information to the Los
Angeles District Attorney’s Office, those efforts have not been the
norm. Sixty-two years after Brady issued, the LASD still does
not have any written policy that covers notifying the District
Attorney about deputy sheriffs with credibility problems. Even
though his predecessor prevailed in ALADS, former Sheriff

12
Villanueva aborted use of the approved-of Brady list, and the
current sheriff has not reinstated it or instituted any equally
effective procedure.
The LASD’s systemic failure to disclose impeaching
information about deputy sheriffs has resulted in the wrongful
convictions of innocent people. 4 The LASD’s suppression of
impeaching information about deputies has also facilitated the
misuse of judicial warrants to search oversight officials’ homes
and to intimidate them publicly as retaliation for officials
conducting meaningful oversight of the department. 5

4 The case of People v. Francisco Carrillo reveals the human cost

of LASD’s Brady non-compliance. Carrillo v. County of Los

Document received by the CA 2nd District Court of Appeal.

Angeles, 2012 WL 12884899 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 12, 2012).
Carrillo, a 16-year-old high school student, was arrested and
prosecuted as an adult for a fatal drive-by shooting in Lynnwood.
At trial, six juvenile witnesses identified Carrillo as the shooter.
The first trial ended in a jury deadlock. After retrial, Carrillo
was convicted and sentenced to 25 years to life. Habeas counsel
interviewed the six eyewitnesses—who were now adults—and
five admitted that they had initially been unable to identify
anybody, and they only identified Carrillo as the shooter after
being coached and threatened by LASD detective Craig Ditsch, a
tattooed member of the notorious Vikings deputy gang. Id. at *4.
Because the LASD had suppressed this impeaching information,
the habeas court granted Carrillo’s Brady claim and vacated his
conviction and sentence. The District Attorney elected not to
retry Carrillo and he was released from prison after serving
twenty years for a murder he didn’t commit. The County settled
Carrillo’s civil rights lawsuit for $10 million.
5 For example, LASD detective Max Fernandez led the high-

profile but discredited investigation of Supervisor Sheila Kuehl

and COC member Patti Giggans. A Superior Court judge had
previously found that Fernandez had committed perjury at a
13
 This Court should grant a writ of prohibition because the
prosecution of Teran impinges on Due Process in criminal trials
by dissuading sheriff deputies and prosecutors from complying
with Brady. Allowing this prosecution to proceed also undermines
civilian oversight of law enforcement by giving cover to the LASD
for wrongfully refusing to produce requested confidential
documents to COC ad hoc committees.

STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS

Diana Teran previously served as the Constitutional
Policing Advisor during Sheriff Jim McDonnell’s administration.
She later served as a special advisor at the District Attorney’s
Office, where she oversaw the Discovery Compliance Unit.

Document received by the CA 2nd District Court of Appeal.

On April 26, 2021, Teran gave Pamela Revel, a deputy
district attorney in the Discovery Compliance Unit, public court
records concerning numerous sheriff deputies whose past
misconduct could trigger credibility concerns. Teran asked Revel

criminal trial. See People v. Aquino, 2005 WL 3086694 (Cal. Ct.

App. Nov. 2005) (noting that “there is no question that
Fernandez’s testimony regarding this matter was false” and
“[t]he testimony was deliberate and no slip of the tongue, and
helpful to the prosecution”). Despite this judicial finding of
perjury, Fernandez testified that he is not a “Brady deputy,” nor
did he disclose the finding in his affidavit in support of the
application to search Giggans’s non-profit and her home. See
10/11/2024 COC Special Hearing Trans. at pp. 33, 41, available at
https://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/commissionpublications/rep
ort/1176546_LASDCOC10-11-24-Full-
SizedTranscriptwithWordIndex.pdf.

14
to further research and determine whether those court records
ought to be entered into the District Attorney’s internal Brady
database tracking law enforcement personnel with credibility
concerns.
Teran’s efforts to comply with Brady are the basis for the
information charging her with multiple counts of accessing and
using data without consent.. Ever since the charges became
public, LASD leadership has frequently cited this prosecution as
a basis for not disclosing confidential documents to the COC.

ARGUMENT
I. Applying Section 502(c)(2) to a Prosecutor Who
Shares Public Court Records with Another
Prosecutor to Determine Whether Those Records

Document received by the CA 2nd District Court of Appeal.

Constitute Brady Material Criminalizes Brady
Compliance.

The court below held that Teran forwarding public court

records to a fellow deputy district attorney for possible entry into
the office’s Brady database could support a conviction for illegal
“access and use” of confidential information under section
502(c)(2) of the Penal Code. Section 502—which was passed to
address computer hacking and theft of trade secrets—has never
previously been applied in this manner. The lower court’s novel
theory of liability under section 502(c)(2) cannot be reconciled
with the California Supreme Court’s most recent Brady decision
in ALADS v. Superior Court, 8 Cal.5th 28 (2019). In ALADS, the

15
deputy union asserted that that the Pitchess statutes 6 prohibited
then-Sheriff Jim McDonnell from creating an internal “Brady
list” and giving “Brady alerts” to the District Attorney. The
Court held that nothing in the statutory scheme prohibited law
enforcement from compiling a Brady list and notifying the
prosecution about a deputy sheriff with credibility problems. The
Court observed, “In this context, construing the Pitchess statutes
to cut off the flow of information from law enforcement personnel
to prosecutors would be anathema to Brady compliance.” Id. at
51. The Court squarely rejected the deputy-union’s argument
that law enforcement agencies have no Brady obligation. In fact,
the court stressed that “law enforcement personnel are required

Document received by the CA 2nd District Court of Appeal.

to share Brady material with the prosecution” and that “the
Association’s contrary view that ‘Brady relates only to the
prosecutor’ and that ‘Brady does not impose obligations on law
enforcement’ is distressing and wrong.” Id. at 52.
Just as it was permissible for then-Sheriff McDonnell to
use information about deputy misconduct to create an internal
Brady list, it is likewise permissible for Teran to use the same
information to enhance an internal District Attorney’s Brady
database to ensure that trial prosecutors comply with their Brady
obligations. The only distinction with a difference between what

6 The law governing protection for the privacy of police officers is

found in a series of statutes commonly referred to as “Pitchess
statutes,” specifically Penal Code sections 832.7 and 832.8 and
Evidence Code sections 1043 and 1045. Warrick v. Superior
Court, 35 Cal.4th 1011, 1019 (2005).
16
the sheriff did in ALADS and what Teran did in this case is that
Teran limited her “use” to public court documents in updating the
Brady database. Those court documents are “public” as a matter
of law. Hurvitz v. Hoefflin, 84 Cal.App.4th 1232, 1246 (2000)
(“Court records are public records, available to the public in
general.”).
The court below nevertheless found probable cause that
Teran had learned of the names of the deputies 7 who appealed
their discipline by previously accessing confidential information
from LASD files. Even if Teran had prior knowledge gleaned from
her work as a constitutional policing advisor, she is permitted to
draw on that acquired knowledge to fulfill the prosecution’s

Document received by the CA 2nd District Court of Appeal.

Brady obligations. See, e.g., ALADS, 8 Cal.5th at 53

7 Police officers’ names are public information. Commission on

Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST) v. Superior Court,
42 Cal.4th 278, 295-299 (2007) (noting that “the names of all
public employees are viewed as public under both state and
federal law” and specifically rejecting the assertion that “officers’
names, employing departments, and dates of employment” are
confidential under section 832.8); Long Beach Officers Assoc. v.
City of Long Beach, 59 Cal.4th 59 (2014) (holding that the names
of police officers who fatally shot an unarmed man are not
confidential under sections 832.7 and 832.8). Consequently, when
Teran forwarded the names of a potential “Brady deputies” to
Revel, she was sharing public information (the name of each
deputy sheriff) gleaned from a public source (a court file) to
facilitate Brady compliance. The fortuity that public information
discovered from a public source may relate to something in a
deputy’s personnel file does not change the reality that no
confidential information was taken or used within the meaning of
section 502(c)(2).
17
(acknowledging that “a prosecutor … may know from a prior
Pitchess motion that a confidential file contains Brady
information regarding an officer in a pending prosecution”).
Indeed, prosecutors must fulfill their Brady obligation regardless
of how the impeaching information was acquired because “what
matters for Brady purposes is what the prosecution team knows,
not how the prosecution team knows it.” Id.
The lower court’s strained interpretation of section 502 to
cover—indeed, criminalize—Brady compliance is contrary to the
letter and spirit of ALADS. The Court in ALADS held that the
Sheriff could give Brady alerts to the District Attorney without
violating Pitchess because the District Attorney was differently

Document received by the CA 2nd District Court of Appeal.

situated than members of the public and needed that information
to fulfill her constitutional duties. The Court wrote, “[D]eeming
information ‘confidential’ creates insiders (with whom
information may be shared) and outsiders (with whom sharing
information might be an impermissible disclosure).” Id at 51. The
same “insider” designation applies to Teran and Revel, since both
used the information within the confines of the Discovery
Compliance Unit to achieve a legitimate governmental purpose,
not to disclose it to the public.

II. This Prosecution Will Inhibit Meaningful Civilian

Oversight of Law Enforcement.

The application of section 502(c)(2) in this manner has

undermined COC oversight of the LASD, which has historically
resisted all forms of civilian oversight to the disadvantage of the

18
communities it is supposed to serve. 8
Sworn testimony before the COC revealed that LASD
investigators previously presented the same or similar evidence
to federal authorities, alleging that Teran had improperly
accessed and used confidential information obtained when she

8 In 1992, the LASD successfully opposed the Kolts Commission’s

recommendation that “a commission be appointed by the Board of
Supervisors and empowered on an ongoing basis to audit and
monitor the LASD on the topics covered by this report.” LASD, A
Response to the Kolts Report (Nov. 1992) at 277. In 1999, the
United States Commission on Civil Rights noted that “[w]hile
civilian review may enjoy popular support from the public …
Sheriff Block remained adamantly opposed to non-department

Document received by the CA 2nd District Court of Appeal.

civilians investigating complaints against deputies.” U.S. Comm.
on Civil Rights, Racial and Ethnic Tensions in American
Communities: Poverty, Inequality, and Discrimination: Volume V:
the Los Angeles Report (May 1999) at 122. In 2014, then-Sheriff
Lee Baca resisted oversight aimed at addressing the
mistreatment of inmates and deputy gang misconduct in the
county jails. When counsel for the Citizens Commission on Jail
Violence questioned how he would be held accountable without
such oversight, Baca famously replied, “Don’t elect me.” James
Tomberlin, “Don’t Elect Me”: Sheriffs and the Need for Reform in
County Law Enforcement, 104 Va. L. Rev. 113, 142 (2018). Baca
was subsequently convicted of obstruction of justice and lying to
the FBI and sentenced to three years in federal prison. On July
24, 2022, then-Sheriff Alex Villanueva notified the COC that he
would not comply with a subpoena to testify at an evidentiary
hearing unless the commissioners agreed to his conditions, which
were contrary to how all other witnesses had testified. Frank
Stolze, Sheriff Villanueva Continues to Defy Subpoena and
Refuses to Testify at Hearing on Deputy Gangs, LAist (July 24,
2022), available at https://laist.com/news/criminal-justice/sheriff-
villanueva-subpoena-continues-to-defy.
19
was the constitutional policing advisor. 9 At the conclusion of the
meeting, federal prosecutors advised the LASD investigators that
there was no evidence of criminal conduct; the prosecutors offered
to give the LASD investigators a declination letter, which they
refused. 10 After being turned down by federal authorities, LASD
leadership publicly urged the California Attorney General to
prosecute Teran and other oversight officials for “conspiracy,
theft of government property, unlawful access of a computer,
burglary, and receiving stolen property.” 11
After the Attorney General filed these charges, the LASD
leadership began using this pending prosecution as an excuse not
to produce requested documents to COC ad hoc committees. For

Document received by the CA 2nd District Court of Appeal.

example, Sheriff Luna voiced concerns that giving the COC
access to confidential documents directly relevant to oversight
puts his employees at risk of prosecution by the Attorney General

9 Det. Mark Lillienfeld testified that he investigated Diana Teran

for accessing confidential information and that he subsequently
met with federal officials to brief them about his investigation of
Teran and several other oversight officials. 10/11/24 COC Special
Hearing Transcript at pp. 95, 108-114, available at
https://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/commissionpublications/rep
ort/1176546_LASDCOC10-11-24-Full-
SizedTranscriptwithWordIndex.pdf.
10 Lillienfeld testified that Brandon Fox, the Chief of the

Criminal Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central

District of California, offered the LASD investigators a
declination letter. Id. at 118.
11 See Undersheriff Murakami’s Nov. 16, 2021 Letter to Attorney

General Rob Bonta, available at https://lasd.org/wp-

content/uploads/2022/09/Transparency_Response111621_AG_Bon
ta_Possible_Criminal_Conduct.pdf.
20
based on the same theory under which Teran is being
prosecuted. 12 The Office of the Inspector General also has
declined to give the COC confidential documents obtained from
the LASD for the same reason, despite previously providing the
COC with similar information. 13

12
At the COC’s Monthly Business Meeting on December 19, 2024,
Commissioner Hans Johnson raised that the LASD cites Teran’s
prosecution when lobbying against proposed revisions of the Los
Angeles County Ordinance 3.79, which clarify and affirm the
COC’s access to confidential information. See Los Angeles County
Sheriff Civilian Oversight Commission Business Meeting
December 19, 2024, available at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qT72WLuyIrk.
13
At the COC’s Monthly Business Meeting on July 18, 2024,
Chief Deputy Inspector General Dara Williams noted that OIG

Document received by the CA 2nd District Court of Appeal.

officials are reticent to share information with the COC because
of the “specter” of Ms. Teran’s prosecution and the investigation
by the LASD that precipitated her indictment. See Los Angeles
County Sheriff Civilian Oversight Commission Business Meeting
July 19, 2024, available at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suTUSVcR_Fs&t=11127s.
Months later, at the COC’s December Business Meeting, Chair
Robert Bonner noted the Office of the Inspector General takes the
position that the OIG cannot share information with the COC
because of concern over the Attorney General’s active prosecution
of Diana Teran for unlawfully disclosing allegedly confidential
information. Inspector General Max Huntsman confirmed Chair
Bonner’s statement, adding that because the Attorney General
takes the “aggressive position” that the providing of public record
from one district attorney to another for consideration as to
whether it triggers a constitutional duty under Brady is grounds
for criminal prosecution, the OIG no longer feels comfortable
sharing information with the COC or any of the COC’s ad hoc
committees. See Los Angeles County Sheriff Civilian Oversight
Commission Business Meeting December 19, 2024, available at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qT72WLuyIrk.
21
 Meaningful civilian oversight of law enforcement is critical
to building trust between law enforcement agencies and the
communities they serve. President’s Task Force on 21st Century
Policing, Final Report of President’s Task Force on 21st Century
Policing (Washington D.C. Office of Community Oriented
Policing Services 2015) at 26 (“Civilian oversight alone is not
sufficient to gain legitimacy; without it, however, it is difficult, if
not impossible for the police to maintain the public’s trust.”)
Such meaningful civilian oversight requires giving the oversight
body access to all necessary documents, including confidential
documents. The National Association of Civilian Oversight of
Law Enforcement has stressed, “Unfettered access to the subject

Document received by the CA 2nd District Court of Appeal.

law enforcement agency’s records is vitally important to civilian
oversight. The ability to review all records relevant to an
investigation or other matters within the scope of a civilian
oversight agency’s authority in a timely manner is essential to
providing effective, informed, and fact-driven oversight.”
NACOLE, Thirteen Principles of Oversight, Principle III,
available at https://www.nacole.org/principles. An oversight
body’s access to documents is particularly important in California
because extremely strict statutory confidentiality for police
personnel files prohibits members of the public from accessing
information about police misconduct. 14

14California has one of the strictest statutory schemes in the

nation regarding the confidentiality of police personnel records.
See, e.g., Jonathan Abel, Brady’s Blind Spot: Impeachment
Evidence in Police Personnel Files and the Battle Splitting the
22
 The LASD’s refusal to produce requested confidential
documents based on professed fears of prosecution by the
Attorney General has dramatically undermined meaningful
civilian oversight. The COC has been unable to review
documents about internal investigations of deputy gangs, deputy-
involved shootings, beatings (including the unprovoked beating of
an unarmed transgender man), false statements and the filing of
false reports to coverup deputy misconduct. Without access to
information about these matters, the COC simply cannot fulfill
its voter-mandated duty to render meaningful civilian oversight
of the LASD.

Document received by the CA 2nd District Court of Appeal.

Prosecution Team, 67 Stan. L. Rev. 743, 762-66 (2015) (classifying

California as one of the most restrictive jurisdictions in the
nation and arguing that the Pitchess statutes conflict with
Brady).
23
 CONCLUSION

Teran’s good-faith efforts to update the District Attorney’s

Brady database and ensure full compliance with the Office’s
constitutional obligations should be lauded, not criminalized.
Nor should the LASD leadership be allowed to cynically use this
misguided prosecution to escape meaningful civilian oversight.
This Court should grant the writ of prohibition forthwith.

Dated: Feb. 17, 2025 Sean Kennedy

Robert Bonner
Sean Kennedy

Attorneys for Amicus Curiae

Document received by the CA 2nd District Court of Appeal.

Civilian Oversight Commission

24
 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

Pursuant to rule 8.204(c) of the California Rules of Court, I

hereby certify that this brief contains 4,477 words, including
footnotes. In making this certification, I have relied on the word
count of the computer program used to prepare the brief.

Dated: February 17, 2025 Sean Kennedy

Sean Kennedy

Attorney for Amicus Curiae

Civilian Oversight Commission

Document received by the CA 2nd District Court of Appeal.

25
 PROOF OF SERVICE

I, Christopher Hawthorne, am over the age of 18, employed

in Los Angeles, California, and not a party to this action. My
business address is LMU Loyola Law School, 919 Albany St. Los
Angeles, CA 90015. I served APPLICATION OF THE
CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT COMMISION FOR LOS ANGELES
COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT TO FILE AMICUS
CURIAE BRIEF; PROPOSED AMICUS BRIEF IN
SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRITE OF PROHIBITION
by electronic service via Truefiling, which automatically notices
all counsel involved in this matter.

Document received by the CA 2nd District Court of Appeal.

I further declare that I served the same document by mail
as a courtesy copy to Hon. Charlaine Olmedo of the Los Angeles
County Superior Court of California at the following address: 111
N Hill St, Los Angeles, CA 90012.
I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is
true and correct. Executed on February 17, 2025.

______________________
Christopher Hawthorne

26