There is no identified statewide public master list of California officers with potential impeachment information, and no general public right to inspect every local agency list or officer file. An internal list, a notice sent to a prosecutor in a pending case, a limited list shared with defense counsel, and specific public incident records are different things. Start by asking which record exists and who has it.
An agency may keep an internal list based on confidential personnel information. California’s Supreme Court has held that the list remains confidential to the extent it derives from confidential personnel records, while an agency may give prosecutors limited identifying and potential impeachment information about an officer who may testify in a pending case. That does not make the full list public or automatically disclose an officer’s confidential file. (Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v. Superior Court, 8 Cal.5th 28 (2019))
Which record are you asking about?
| Record | What may be available |
|---|---|
| Internal agency or prosecutor list | The list itself may remain confidential. Ask counsel whether a case-specific notice or disclosure exists for an officer involved in the pending matter. |
| Limited list for defense counsel | A public prosecutor may, with receiving counsel’s agreement, share a narrow notice list with a public defender office or an attorney of record in a criminal case. It contains officer name, defendant name and case number; it is not a public roster. |
| Specified officer-incident record | California law makes certain categories publicly inspectable under the Public Records Act, subject to redactions and temporary withholding rules. This does not open every allegation or personnel file. |
| Other confidential personnel material | Counsel can assess whether a case-specific motion and private judicial review are appropriate; being on a list alone does not release the file. |
Penal Code § 13300(o) permits, but does not require, a public prosecutor to give a public defender office or licensed attorney of record in a criminal case a limited list to facilitate notice across cases. The provision is not a general public disclosure right and does not waive confidentiality of underlying records. (Penal Code § 13300(o))
Separate underlying incident records may be public under Penal Code § 832.7(b). The statute covers specified categories, including certain officer firearm discharges, force causing death or great bodily injury, and sustained findings in defined misconduct categories such as dishonesty, sexual assault, bias, or unlawful arrest or search. Redactions and statutory withholding conditions still apply. An allegation, an internal list entry, and a sustained finding are not interchangeable. (Penal Code § 832.7(a), (b)(1), (b)(4)–(9))
In a pending case, ask about the specific officer and notice
The prosecutor must disclose exculpatory evidence in the prosecutor’s possession or known to be held by investigating agencies. A case-specific alert about an officer may therefore prompt counsel to assess a disclosure request, but it is not the same as receiving confidential personnel files. A judge may review protected records privately and disclose material information under the applicable procedure. (Penal Code § 1054.1(e); Evidence Code § 1043 and § 1045(b), (e); Schneider v. Superior Court, No. B341712 (2025))
To discuss the issue with counsel, identify the officer’s full name or badge number, agency, role in the case, case number, discovery index and any prosecutor notice or disclosure. Also note the incident type and whether you are asking for a public incident record, an internal list, or case-specific evidence. Do not assume a list entry proves the officer lied or guarantees a dismissal.
For broader context, see our criminal investigation and pretrial overview. The Law Offices of David S. Chesley can review the officer’s role, any prosecution notice and the proper next request in a California criminal case. Call (800) 755-5174.