From: kit-me COCONON SHAUN A. SULLIVAN- (SBN: 278516) KRISTEN A. FRIEDMAN (SBN: 31 7639) The Sullivan Defense 24-45 Fifth Ave. Ste. 330 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 760?327?1529 Fax: 619-237~0128 Email: sas@thesullivandefense.com. ATTORNEYS FOR Donald Vincent Brooks SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE SOUTHWESTJUSTICE CENTER People of the State of California Plaintiff, vs. Donald Vincent Brooks, Defendant. To the above entitled court, the District Attorney for Riverside County, County of Riverside, State of California, and the Custodian of Records for the Riverside County Sheriffs Department, and the Sheriff of Riverside County: Please take notice that on May 30, 2018 in Department 8201 at 8:30 a.n1., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, the defendant, Donald Vincent Brooks, will move that the Court order the City Attorney?s Of?ce and the above-noticed law enforcement agency (at all times hereafter referred to as ?The Department?) to make available for examination, copying, and for the hearing on this motion the i Defendant Donald Vincent Brooks? Notice of Motion, ?oints Authorities Order for Pretrial Discovery 05/07/2018 14:40 #564 FILED Superior Court of California County of RiverSIde 5/7/2018 M. Aldor By Fax Case No: 600759 NOTICE OF AND DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY DATE: May 30, ?20} 8 TIME: 8:30 am. DEPT: JUDGE: Honj. Monterosso From: 05/07/2018 14:40 #564 materials described below regarding the following Riverside County Sheriff of?cers: Master Investigator bl Robert M. Cornett (#4072) and Master Investigator Anthony Pelato (#2109). DATED: May 7, 2018 $111on A. SUEIVAN Attorney for VINCE BROOKS 2 Defendant Donald Vincent Brooks? Notice of hiotion, Points Authorities Order for Pretrial Discovery From: onan 05/07/2018 14:40 #564 SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM: LIST OF DESIRED MATERIALS The discovery desired of the Riverside County Sherifl?s Department, hereafter ?The Department,? concerning Master Investigator Robert M. Cornett (#4072) and Master Investigator Anthony Pelato (#2l09) is listed below, with supporting authorities. All requests are based on federal due process (Brady 0. Aloylond (1963) 83 S. Ct. 194), California due process, and California Constitution Article I, section 28, in addition to the authorities cited below. All the information below is requested regardless of the disposition of the matters. 1. The names, addresses, and telephone numbers of all persons who have ?led complaints with, or who were interviewed by investigators or other personnel from the RIVERSIDE DEPARTMENT (hereinafter ?The Department?) against Master Investigators ROBERT M. CORNETT and ANTHONY PELATO relating to acts of dishonesty and disclosure of all complaints of official misconduct amounting to moral turpitude, including but not limited to racial or ethnic prejudice, false arrest, illegal search and seizure, planting evidence, destruction ofevidence, fabrication of probable cause, false testimony, perjury, or the fabrication of charges and/or evidence, as well as the ?ling olisuch complaints. Additionally, defendant requests disclosure of the discipline imposed upon the named investigators because of The Department?s investigation of any citizen complaint described above. (See Enid. Code ?104v5(a); Pierre? (.3. v. Superior Chart (1984) 159 Cal.App.3d 120.) 2. The names, addresses, and telephone numbers of all persons who have filed complaints with The Department against the above-named officers for any act involving morally lax character. (California Constitution, Art. l, ?286); People 14726616? (1992) 4- Cal.4th 284) 3. Verbatim copies of all statements, written or oral, made by persons filing complaints or interviewed during investigations of such complaints as described in items I and 2 above. (Colyhmia Constitution Art. I Caldwell o. illunicifml Court (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 4. The names, addresses, and telephone numbers of all persons interviewed by The Department, its investigators and other personnel during imrestigation into complaints as described in Items 1 and 2 against the above-named investigators. (California Constitution Art I. Hold. Code ?1045(a); Kevin. L. o. iS?uperior Count (1976) 62 Cal.App.3d 823.) 3 ., Defendant Donald Vincent Brooks? Notice of Motion, Points 8: Authorities Order for Pretrial Discovery From: LDJN 10. ll. DATED: May 7, 2018 Defendant Donald Vincent Brooks? Notice of Motion, Points Authorities Order for Pretrial Discovery 05/07/2018 14:42 #564 All verbatim statements, written or oral, made by persons interviewed by The Department, its investigators and other personnel during their investigation into compiaints as described in item 4 above. (Colg?mio Constitution Art I. laid. Code ?l045(a); (L?oldwell o. Alienation! Court (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 377.) All tape recordings and/ or transcriptions thereof, and notes and memoranda by investigating personnel of The Department made in i1'1vestigations described in items, l, 2, and 4 above. (Col?omio. Constitution Art 1. Eoz'd. Code Peoper o. Axioms (19379) 92 Cal.App.3d 862.) The names and assignments of investigators and other personnel employed by The Department as described in items I, 2, and 4. (People v. l/ereler, supra.) The written procedures established by The Department to investigate citizen complaints against The Department or its personnel. (Pen. Code All records of The Department concerning records of statements and opinions, including but not limited to, ?ndings, letters, formal reports, and oral conversations made by superior officers and fellow officers, oftlie above?named investigators that pertain to acts indicating or constituting but not limited to racial or ethnic prejudice, false arrest, illegal search and seizure, planting evidence, destruction of evidence, fabrication of probable cause, false testimony, perjury, or the fabrication of charges and/ or evidence. (Colyiimzo Constitution Art I. Pierre C. o. Superior Court, supra.) All exculpatory evidence contained in the personnel files of Deputy Michael Cornett and Deputy Anthony l?elato. All records ofdiscipline imposed by The Department upon the above?named investigators for conduct specified in items 1, 2, and 9. (Colybmia Constitution Art I. livid. Code ?1045(a); Arcelona o. .Mlunz'cipal Court (1980) 13 Cal.App.3d 523.) SHAUN A. KRISTEN A. FRIEDMAN Attorneys for Donald Vincent Brooks -21.- From05/07/2018 14:44 #564 DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY I, Shaun A. Sullivan, declare: I am the attorney oi?reeord for the above-named defendant. That I am informed and believe that The Riverside County Sheriff?s Department: (hereinafter ?The Department?) makes and keeps written records of complaints received by The Department and that such records are kept. in ?les maintained by The Department. That I am informed and believe that from time to time persons give statements to The Department concerning officers of The Department, alleging said officers committed acts indicating racial or ethnic prejudice and dishonesty. hat I am informed and believe that The Department assigns personnel to investigate said complaints. That these personnel correspond with or interview complainants, witnesses, and other persons to make notes, memoranda, and records of conversations in connection with their investigations and prepare and file reports, findings, opinions, and conclusions concerning their investigations. rThat The Department keeps in its personnel record files, or other files, notes, ?ndings, memoranda, recordings, reports, transcripts, opinions, and conclusions of the investigations made and of the disciplinary proceedings commenced as a result of such complaints. That said files contain the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of'witnesses interviewed during such investigations and of persons who initiate complaints. That I am informed and believe that the records, data, and materials described in paragraphs (l through I l) of the Notice oiiMotion and Declaration in Support of Motion ?led and served herein are in the exclusive possession and control of The Department and/or the Office of Riverside County District Attorney, and are readily available to each of them; that said records, data, and materials are not known to either defendant or defense counsel and will not otherwise be In ade available to defendant or defense counsel. A substantial issue in the trial of this case may be the honesty, and therefore the credibility of Investigators Cornett and Pelota. A second substantial issue in the trial of this case may be the racial .. 5 - Defendant Donald Vincent Brooks? Notice of Motion, Points Authorities Order for Pretrial Discovery From: 05/07/2018 14:45 #564 bias of Investigators Cornett and Pelota, which directly impacts their credibility and may serve as impeachment evidence. 7. Specifically, in this case, based on my information and belief, the factual foundation to support the defense argument of officer misconduct as detailed above is as is follows: The alleged criminal threats at issue in this case are primarily contained in text messages and Facebook Messenger. Investigator Cornett had Deputy Hill (#4728) draft a search warrant for Mr. Brooks? cellphone andJudge MeConaghy signed it on April 20, 6. Investigator Cornett performed the forensic download of Mr. Brooks? phone using the Cellebrite Extraction Tool which outputs text messages between parties in chronological order. in his report, Investigator Cornett. reproduced selected text messages from 2015 in the body of his report without including photographic attachments or a Cellebrite summary report for the totality of the text messages. (Exhibit A). These text messages from October to December 2015 do not appear to be the basis of Mr. Brooks? charges. The other statements Investigator Cornett selected from the April 2016 incident are taken out of context, out ofchronological order, and are sampled from complete sentences which provide contexts that. reframe the meaning of the phrases. Investigator Cornett?s choice to base his recommendation for charges on his personal edit of a wider body of communication indicates dishonesty in his investigative work, as well as the manipulation of evidence. Investigator Cornett?s reputation for honesty and his credibility have been subject to scrutiny recently. Desert Sun Reporter Brett Kelman published an article on February 8, 2018: ?Twenty-?ve cops were caught cheating on a promotional exam. Nobody got fired. Some still got promoted.? (Exhibit B). In the latter half of 20l5 the Riverside County Sheriffs Department discovered that 25 of their employees had tried to cheat on the exam that would allow them to be promoted to the rank of investigator. (Exhibit B). According to this investigation, Investigator Cornett sent out an e-mail on the first day ofthe 2015 testing cycle with more than seventy answers to the exam. (Exhibit B). He e-?rnailed the list. of suggested answers to employees who had not yet taken the test. (Exhibit 13). He also instructed the deputies awaiting the exam on what to say. (Exhibit B). His e-mail wound up in Internal Affairs who were then able to identify the source. (Exhibit B). The cheating scheme and Investigator Clornett?s manitmlation of the evidence in his reports provide a factual basis for this motion. 5 - Defendant Donald Vincent Brooks" Notice of Motion, Points 8: Authorities Order for Pretrial Discovery From05/07/2018 14:47 #564 Counsel has information and belief that investigators Pelato and Cornett have been the subject of complaints pertaining to their conduct as it relates to racial bias and discrimination. Counsel has information that Investigator l?elato was terminated from a position for beating up an Ali?icamAmerican man and calling him a ?nigger.? Counsel has information that Investigator lornett was disciplined for referring to Sergeant Victor Tejeda, who is Dominican and black, a ?nigger.? Counsel has information that Investigators Pelato and Cornett both lied in order to ensure the termination of Terry Jones, who is also African American. Counsel requests that. any information related to complaints about racial bias and discrimination are disclosed as Mr. Brooks is African-American. it is necessary the requested materials be made available to the defendant to properly prepare this case for trial. These items are material and relevant to the trial of this case and are necessary for the defense?s preparation for trial in order to determine the credibility and trustworthiness of Investigators Cornett and Pelato. Evidence that a police oilicer has a history of falsifying police reports, planting evidence, making false arrests, fabricating probable cause, giving false testimony or committing perjury would be relevant and admissible to establish the of?cer?s character for honesty and truthfulness. If theJudge determines that the investigators in this case have a character for fabrication or dishonesty, the jury may choose to disregard the entire testimony of the officer or of?cers. These materials would be used by the defense to locate witnesses to testify that the investigators? character traits, habits, and customs include engaging in acts of falsifying or manipulating evidence, and conducting biased investigations to favor a certain outcome. These character traits of the Investigators are relevant to show their propensity to engage in dishonesty, including acts of falsifying or manipulating evidence and allowing racial prejudice to direct. an investigation, and that the Investigators engaged in such conduct in this case. Such information would also be used by the defense to effectively cross-examine the of?cer at trial, and for impeachment purposes where appropriate. Additionally, such information would be used by the defense in the discovery of other admissible evidence. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. .. 7 - Defendant Donald Vincent Brooks? Notice of Motion, Points 81 Authorities Order for Pretrial Discovery From: 05/07/2018 14:48 #564 Executed on May 7, 2018 at San Diego, California. Shaun A. Sullix?gm/Deeiarant 8 Defendant Donald Vincent: Brooks? Notice of Motion, Points Authorities 8: Order for Pretrial Discovery From05/07/2018 14:49 #564 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES THE DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY OF CITIZEN COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE POLICE OFFICERS INVOLVED IN THIS CASE The California Supreme Court has ruled that the basic principle underlying defense discovery in a criminal case stems from the "fundamental proposition that [an accused] is entitled to a fair trial and an intelligent defense in light of all relevant and reasonable accessible information. {Pits/2655 Superior Court (1974) 1 Cal.3d 531, 535.) Pitchess made it clear that ?an compel discovery by demonstrating that the requested information will facilitate the ascertainment of the facts and a fair trial'.? (Gigi! ofSuuto Cruz 0. Muuicrpal Court (1989) 49 Cal.3d. 74, 84.) These fundamental principles have been applied by the California Supreme Court to allow criminal defendants to discover police personnel records. (City ofSauta Cruz 0. Municipal Court, supra, 49 Cal.3d 74, 84). The Legislature codi?ed these discovery rules (as they relate to police personnel records) in Evidence Code sections 1043 to 1047. his codi?cation served to expand these principles of discovery as they relate to police personnel records. have previously held that the Legislature, in adopting the statutory scheme in question, 'not only reaf?rmed but expanded' the principles of criminal discovery articulated by this court in the landmark case of Pitchers v. Superior (16th In order to obtain discovery of the type requested in this case, a criminal defendant must ?rst meet the requirements of Evidence Code section 1043. The threshold showing here is, according to the California Supreme Court, "very low." {City (nyauta Cruz 0. Aluniripol Court, supra, 49 Cal.3d 74, 83.) The Supreme Court has rejected the notion that a defendant must follow the rather strict requirements of the various civil discovery procedures, noting that such a procedure would run counter to the protections of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution in many instances. (Pits/less 0. Superior Court, supra, ll Cal.3d 531, 536.) Character traits of complaining witnesses for traits relevant to the defense may be shown by Once a defendant shows (avid. Code 1103.) speci?c acts, opinion, or reputation evidence. - 9 .. Defendant Donald Vincent Brooks? Notice of Motion, Points 8: Authorities Order for Pretrial Discovery From: 05/07/2018 14:50 #564 relevancy, that the material cannot be obtained otherwise, and generally specifies the material sought, the defendant is entitled to discovery of that material. (In re Fillets E. (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 213.) If a criminal defendant: alleges that character of the officer for dishonesty is placed in issue. Discovery of prior citizen complaints against the officer for the character trait of lying then becomes mandatory. (By-taint U. Superior Court, (2003), 108 Cal. App. 4th 100). To be discoverable it is irrelevant whether or not the information sought is or will be admissible in court. It need only be something which will assist. the defense in the preparation of the case or which may lead to relevant material. (Cadena v. Superior Jam: (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 2l2, Kelvin I. v. Superior Court {1976) 62 Cal.App.3d 823.) in Whine/t Sapient)? Court (2005) 35 Cal.4th 101 l, the court ofappeal had denied the defendant an review because he had failed to make the required good cause showing, because his factual scenario was not ?plausible.? Id. at 1019. he California Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeal had applied a ?stricter standard for obtaining [an] in~chambers review of officer personal information than is required by law.? Id. at 1019. To show good cause as required by section 104-3, defense counsel?s declaration in support of a Pita/laws motion must propose a defense or defenses to the pending charges. The declaration must articulate how the discovery sought may lead to relevant evidence or may itself be admissible direct or impeachment evidence: (internal citation) that would support: those proposed defenses. These requirements ensure that only information ?potentially relevant? to the defense need be brought by the. custodian of the officer?s records to the court for its examination in chambers. (Internal citations.) . - . \?Vhat the defendant must present is a specific factual scenario of of?cer misconduct that is plausible when read in light of the pertinent documents. (Internal citations). . . What standard must a moving party meet to show a ?plausible? factual foundation for the Pitt/2633? discovery requested? conclude that a plausible scenario of of?cer misconduct is one that might or could have occurred. Such a scenario is plausible because it presents an assertion of specific police misconduct that is both internally consistent and supports the defense proposed to the charges. A defendant must also show how the information sought could lead to or be evidence potentially admissible at trial. Such a showing ?put[s] the court on notice? that the specified officer misconduct ?will likely be an issue at trial.? Once that burden is met, the defendant has shown materiality under section l043. (internal citation.) 10 Defendant Donald Vincent Brooks? Notice of Motion, Points Authorities Order for Pretrial Discovery From: 05/07/2018 14:52 #564 Id. at l024?1026 [emphasis added]. That is the. standard that should give pause to anybody thinking the defendant here has not made a sufficient showing of materiality: ?plausible scenario? that ?might or could have occurred.? Id, 311026. The defendant is not required to show all defenses or to commit to a specific defense. ln order to discover information from a police of?cer?s personnel ?le a defendant need only show possible defenses {Art?elona Almziripal Court (1980) 13 Cal.App.3d 523, Kelvin Superior Court, supra, 62 Cal.App.3d 823.) No personal statement of the intended defense by the defendant is required; an af?davit of counsel that the defense ?may? be selfvdefense suf?ces. (People a A/Iemro (1985) 38 Cal.3d 658; Kelvin L. Superior?'ourt, supra, 62 Cal.App.3d 823.) A Pate/ms af?davit alleging facts showing relevance need not be based upon personal knowledge, and the defense need not Show there are complaints to get discovery. (City quanta Cruz .Mum'czpal Court 1989) 49 Cal.3d 74.) A criminal defendant is not required to furnish foundational facts about the information being sought because the defendant is not in a position to know whether the complaints in fact established the custom, habit, intent, motive or plan which is being alleged. (People v. .Memro, supra, 38 Cal.3d 65.) Discovery applies to all of?cers ?directly involved in the fracas? regardless of whether the officer is named in the complaint or information or is considered a ?victim.? (Himsbe v. Superior (four: 0976) 55 Cal.App.3d 692.) Ifthe complaints were found not sustained, they remain discoverable. (People v. Zamora {1980) 28 Cal.3d 88.) A criminal defendant is entitled to discover the discipline imposed upon a police of?cer as a result of citizen complaints of misconduct. (Cigar quarzjose v. Superior Court (Allie/me! B. (l993) 5 Cal/Rh 47.) The California Supreme Court has repeatedly held that evidence of conduct amounting to moral turpitude, should it exist, is admissible to help the trier of fact determine whether any given witness is telling the truth or is the kind of person who would subvert the truth?finding process. The Supreme Court has never carved out an exception that allows police of?cers to be able to testify unfettered by prior instances of morally turpitudinous conduct. No witness is allowed to testify cloaked in a false aura of veracity. Because such evidence is admissible at trial, there must also be a mechanism allowing the discovery of this evidence by the defense. Although couched in terms of a prosecutor's duty to disclose evidence favorable - 11 Defendant Donald Vincent Brooks? Notice of Motion, Points Authorities Order for Pretrial Discovery From: 43.9905/07/2018 14:53 #564 to the defense, the Court oi?Appeal in People a. 30 Cal.App.4?th l69, held that Constitutional Due Process requires a defendant be granted discover of this type of evidence of misconduct involving moral turpitude. Prior to the enactment of Proposition 8, impeachment with prior nonwfelony conduct was barred by the Evidence Code. Proposition 8, however, changed that rule. (People a Harris (1989) 47 Cal.3d 1047, 1080? l081.) In Harris, the Supreme Court considered the defense claim that ?the prosecutor's examination of Sergeant V'Vachsmuth was improper and the testimony inadmissible insofar as it related to Linicome's reliability as an informant in past cases.? (1d. at p. 1080.) The court noted the rule barring such prior instances, based on Evidence Code section 787. The court held, ?We, therefore, agree with the conclusion of" the Court. of Appeal in People a. Taylor, supra, 180 Cal.App.3d 622, 631, that section 28(d) effected a pro tanto repeal of Evidence Code section 790, and ?nd no basis on which to distinguish Evidence Code sections 786 and 787.? (1d. at pp. l081? 082.) The court concluded, ?Admission of this evidence of Linicome?s past reliability as an informant, and the prosecutor?s reference to it in closing argument, therefore, involved neither error nor misconduct.? (E. at p. 1083.) In 1991, the Supreme Court again turned to this issue, addressing the admissibility of conduct by Steele, a prosecution witness, to impeach Steele's testimony. ?Hence, statutory rules against impeachment with acts not culminating in a felony conviction and with character traits not bearing directly upon honesty or veracity do not apply. (People 0. Harris {1989) 4-7 Cal.3d 1047, 1081?1082 [255 Cal.Rptr. 352, 767 P.2d 619]; see Evid. Code, 786? 788.) Evidence that Steele threatened witnesses suggests he is the type of person who would harm others and subvert the court's truth??nding process for selfish reasons. Both traits are indicative oi?a morally lax character from which the jury could reasonably infer a readiness to lie.? {People v. A?ckle (199l) 54 Cal.3d 140, 168; citation omitted.) In 1992, the Supreme Court summarized Ham's and A?IiekZe: ?Harris and ill-?ckle, both supra, employed this reasoning to conclude that statutory prohibitions on impeachment with conduct evidence other than felony convictions (see Enid. Code, 787, 788) no longer apply in criminal cases. In Harris, we held that section 28(d) renders evidence of'prior reliability as a police informant admissible to attack or support a witness's credibility. (47 Cal.3d at pp. 3080-1082) In iMirkle, we noted that ajailhouse informant?s threats against: witnesses in his .. .. Defendant Donald Vincent Brooks? Notice of Motion, Points Authorities Order for Pretrial Discovery From: 05/074?2018 14:55 #564 own case implied dishonesty and moral laxity. Hence, we ruled, the threats were relevant and admissible to impeach him under section 28(d) (54 Cal.3d at p. 168.)? (People a Wheeler (1992) 4 Cal.4th 284, 291~292.) The Supreme Court in Wheeler held that prior acts of misconduct not amounting to a felony may be used to impeach any witness, subject only to the requirements that the conduct relate to moral tuipitude and subject to Evidence Code section 352: ?The reasoning of Harris and Mickie clearly governs the use of misdemeanor misconduct for impeachment. By its plain terms, section 28(d) requires the admission in criminal cases of all ?relevant? proffered evidence unless exclusion is allowed or required by an ?existing statutory rule of evidence relating to privilege or hearsay or Evidence Code, [s]ections 352, 782 or i 103,? or by new laws passed by two?thirds of each house of the Legislature. The limitations on impeachment evidence contained in Evidence Code sections 787 and 788 do not fall within any of section stated exceptions to its general rule that relevant evidence is admissible. It follows that Evidence Code sections 787 and 788 no longer preclude the introduction of relevant misdemeanor misconduct for impeachment in criminal proceedings.? (People I-ereler, supra, 4 Cal/ith 284, 292.) Moreover, the Supreme Court concluded that the conduct used to impeach need not even amount to a misdemeanor: ?But section 28(d) makes immoral conduct admissible for impeachment whether or not it produced any conviction, felony or misdemeanor. Indeed, misdemeanor convictions are subject to a hearsay objection when offered to prove the witness committed the underlying crimes. Thus, impeaching misconduct now may, and sometimes must, be proven by direct evidence of the acts committed. These acts might not even constitute criminal offenses.? (People v. l-ereler, supra, 4 Cal.4t11 284, 297, in. 7; citations and italics omitted.) The Supreme Court noted, ?Of course, the admissibility of any past misconduct for impeachment is limited at the outset by the relevance requirement of moral turpitude.? (People 2). Wheeler, supra, 4 Cal.4th 284, 296.) The Supreme Court ruled that apart from the relevance requirement of moral turpitude, evidence of past misconduct is limited only by Evidence Code section 352?s restrictions. at pp. 295-297.) In sum, prior instances of dishonest behavior are admissible to impeach the credibility of testifying police of?cers. Prior instances of lying are admissible (People E). Harris, supra, 47 Cal.3d 10417, 1080-1082); prior instances of threats offorce are admissible (People v. Ellie/?16, supra, 54 Cal.3d 140, 168), and any prior misconduct .. 13 .. Defendant Donald Vincent Brooks? Notice of Motion, Points Authorities 8: Order for Pretrial Discovery From: 05/074?2018 14:57 #564 amounting to moral turpitude is admissible (People v. l-lr?kceler, supra, 4 Cal.4th 284', 295-297) to impeach a testifying witness. It must be stressed that the Supreme Court did not create one rule for civilian witnesses and a separate threshold rule for police ollicers. The rule created by the Supreme Court applies to all witnesses: if that witness has engaged in conduct amounting to moral turpitude, that evidence is admissible to impeach the witness, subject only to the strictures of Evidence Code section 352. A witness who engages in conduct amounting to moral turpitude is a dishonest person who displays a morally lax character. This is true whether the witness is a gang member who has strong-armed and bullied others or a police officer who uses his or her badge as a shield to engage in improper conduct. The threshold standard established by the Supreme Court is simply one of relevance. (People v. l'Vfieeler, supra, 4? Cal.4th 284, 295-297.) The information being requested, iliobtained by the defense, either would be admissible itself or would lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Thus, the information is discoverable. (In re Vrzlerz'e E. 0975) 50 Cal.App.3d 213.) Any claim of privilege requires the imposition of sanctions when the material being sought is relevant to the defense- (DEN 1W. 0. Superior Court {1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 782.) A defendant is constitutionally entitled to any evidence that is exculpatory of the defendant's guilt, including evidence which impeaches any prosecution witness. (Brady 1). iWaryland, 373 U.194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963)) Our Supreme Court has held that "[bjecause Brady's constitutional materiality standard is narrower than the Pitchess requirements, any citizen complaint that meets Brady?s test of materiality necessarily meets the relevance standard for disclosure under Pitchess." (City qu05 Angela: IF. Superior Court, 29 Cal. 4th l, 10, 124 Cal. Rptr. 2d 202, 52 P.3d 129 (2002)) Thus, if a defendant meets the good cause requirement for Pitchess discover, any Brady material in an oliicer's file will necessarily be included. [Pro?le U. Gutierreg, 12 Cal. App. 4th 1463, 6 Cal. Rptr. 3d l38 (2d Dist. 2003)) Upon a proper showing and a request for Brady material, the courts have recognized a hybrid Pitchess/ Brady Motion" that requires the trial court to search the of?cer's personnel records to "ascertain whether they contain information required to - 14. Defendant Donald Vincent Brooks? Notice of h/lotion, Points Authorities 8: Order for Pretrial Discovery From: 05/07/2018 14:58 #564 be disclosed to (the defendant) under Brady.? (Abattz' v. Superior Court, 1 12 Ca}. App. 4th 39, 60, 4' Cal. Rptr. 3d 767 {4th Dist. 2003)) Dated: May 7, 2038 Respectfuliy submitted .. SHAUN A. KRISTEN A. FRIEDMAN Attorneys For Donald Vincent Brooks Defendant Donald Vincent Brooks? Notice of Motion, I?oints Authorities 8: Order for Pretrial Discovcnr From: 05/07/2018 14:59 #564 owmumm?m r?th?Im EXHIBIT A From: 05/07/2018 15:00 #564 At ieast 25 Riverside County cops were caught cheating on a promotionai exam. Nobody got fired. digits, 11:10 AM Twenty-five cops were caught cheating on a promotional exam. Nobody got fired. Some still got promoted. Brat Desert Sun Pubtisiled 4:38 pm. PT Feb. 8, 2018 I Updated 2:44 pan. PT Feb. 9, 2018 RIVERSIDE, Catif. it was the fourth time that the deputy had taken the highly competitive investigator exam, and most iikely, the fourth time she had taited. After 12 years on the bottom rung of the sheriff?s department, the coveted promotion from deputy to investigator which meant more money, more respect and more important work remained tantalizingiy out of her reach. But the deputy did not plan on giving up. When the exam was over, she rushed back to her desk and began typing out the test questions, anxious to make a new study guide while her memory was stilt fresh. The deputy (Photo: Riverside County snoorrs racked her brain, trying to remember every question exactly as it had been as ked. Department documents) Soon, there was a veteran oop peeking over her shoulder, asking for a cepy. The deputy knew she wasn?t supposed to discuss the exam with anyone test-takers were ordered to keep the questions con?dentiat but this guy was aiready an investigator. He had been with the department for two decades, and the deputy saw him as the kind of cop she wanted to be someday. What was the harm of ietting him peek? She printed out the questions and left them taoe?ep on his desk. ?1 shoutd have grabbed the paper, but i didn?t. I left it with him," the deputy said two days tater, stuck in an interview room on the wrong side of an internal affairs investigation. Leaked exam questions had spread through the sheriff's department like a virus. She was patient zero. ADVERTISEMENT Page 1 of 7 From: 05/07/2018 15:01 #564 At iaast 25 Riverside County cops were caught cheating on a promotional exam. Nobody got tired. 4i9i18,11:30 AM ?Did he teii you what he was going to do with the questions?" an internal affairs investigator asked. didn't ask." the deputy responded, adding later: ?But i shouid have grabbed my frickin? questions back.? Two and a half years ago, an internal investigation at the Riverside County Sheriff?s Department uncovered that 25 employees attempted to cheat their way to a higher rank by sharing questions and answers irorn what was supposed to be a con?dential promotionai exam, according to a Desert Sun review of agency documents and more than 15 hours of interview recordings obtained by the newspaper. The cheating was believed to be so widespread that the sheriff?s department voided the test, requiring more than 200 empioyees to retake a portion of the 2015 investigator exam. MORE: Riverside with mgrer for suggjing the gther man in love triangli?stor?digit isnatives hi h~ hoolf2 17!12i221river id - 20001 This cheating scandal, revealed to the public for the ?rst time in this articie, shouid be concerning for at least two reasons. First, the possibility of broad and longstanding cheating catis into question if the most quali?ed deputies are promoted into the position of investigator, where they take responsibility for solving complex crimes like murders and rapes. Second, the scandat casts a tasting shadow on the police of?cers' integrity and quali?cations. which could be used to attack their credibitity in the courtroom, making them tess usefui as witnesses and therefore less effective at convicting criminais. The documents and recordings obtained by The Desert Sun come from an internai, con?dential investigation that is barely known outside of the sheriff?s department. Caiifornia?s laws on poiice privacy are so restrictive the basic details of the investigation are kept secret, not just from the public, but also from the District Attorney?s Office, which depends on the police officers to testify in court. Scandals like this one would be disctosed to prosecutors oniy after they introduce one of these deputies as a witness, meaning they might build an entire case on the testimony of a deputy whose integrity could crumble during cross-examination. ?It shouid be a signi?cant concern tor the local prosecutors," said lrene Oritseweyinmi Joe, a criminai law professor at UC Davis who was briefed on the scandal by The Desert Sun. ?The integrity of the criminai justice process depends on potice of?cers who practice their profession morally. And if you can't rely on the police officers as the foundationat element of the process, it taints everything that foiiows.? Despite the alarming findings of the interns! affairs investigation, it does not appear that any sheriff?s department employees were demoted or fired as a resutt of the cheating scandal. It is unciear if they were suspended or disciplined in another way. Page 2 of 7 From: 05/07/2018 15:03 #564 At ieast 25 Riverside County cops were caught cheating on a promotional exam. Nobody got tired. exerts, 11:10 AM All discipline taken against sheriff's department employees is con?dentiat because of California?s Peace Officer Bill of Rights, one of the strictest police privacy laws in the nation. However, public staffing records reveai that everyone who was interviewed in the cheating investigation has either maintained the same rank or been promoted since the scandal. Four employees who were accused of or admitted to sharing or receiving test materiais in 2015 were stilt promoted to investigator after another testing cycle in 2017. The Desert Sun has also obtained a list of all sheriff's department employees who have been fired in the past 10 years. None of the employees investigated in the cheating scandal appear on that list. The Desert Sun is not identifying most of the emptoyees who were implicated in the cheating scandai because the internal affairs documents obtained by the newspaper are incomplete. The documents summarize the investigation but do not inciude the conclusions as to each employee, so it is not de?nitively clear which employees were found to have violated sheriff?s department poiicies and which were not. Regardless, the documents show the cheating in 2015 was pervasive in the western half of Riverside County. mostly at the sheriff's personnel office and the police stations in Moreno Vaiiey. Penis and Lake Eisinore. Leaked test questions and answers were shared by friends and partners through a web of phone calls. emails, text messages and hushed conversations. One corporal, who admitted that he received and shared test answers but said he did not beiieve that he had cheated, worked as a training officer who oversees the entry exams for new recruits. Cheating was so common that four deputies received information about the exam from three separate co?workers, each, within three days of the start of testing. JNVESTIGATEON: She was 91 and dvino of dementia. City Halt ?ned her Now it her fantin mpg; pan The internai records also reveal that the cheating scandal was likely bigger than what was uncovered. in one interview, a veteran employee at the center of the scandat said deputies had a tongstanding ?culture? of sharing test questions, and that the practice was so common that he didn?t even realize it was forbidden. Another suspect who was grilled in a two-hour interview initialiy said internal affairs would ?have to talk to a lot oi people? to unravet the cheating scandal, but tater ctaimed he was just joking and said he couldn?t remember the names of any oi the co-workers he had studied with. And finally, at least five more deputies totd internal affairs they had heard a rumor that someone had taken a picture of the exam questions, then shared it throughout the Moreno Valley station. it does not appear that internal affairs ever found that photo or identi?ed that person, if they exist. ?Everybody is tatking about it," a deputy told internal affairs when asked about the rumor, according to an audio recording of his interview. ?Somebody sent out an email. and then sent some text messages in reference to the questions, and then it spread tike wildfire.? in a statement released to The Desert Sun, the sheriff?s department confirmed the existence of the cheating investigation, which was described as "thorough" and ted to ?appropriate action taken with respect to at: involved personnel." The department said it had added safeguards to make employee testing more secure. but would not comment on the speci?c safeguards to protect the ?integrity of future testing." The department also said it was confident it ?did not have a culture of cheating," and that the 2015 investigation should not make the pubtic concerned about the quali?cations of investigators. ?We are extremely proud of the members of our department and the public shoutd feet absolutety con?dent that it is receiving nothing but the ?nest law enforcement services from the Riverside County Sheriff's Department," the statement said. Preserving ?the competitive process? The investigator exam, held every two years, has the power to make or break a cop's career. The exam determines which deputies and corporate are promoted to the rank of investigator, a position more commoniy known as detective in many other police agencies. The promotion is the major milestone, separating the suit-wearing steuths who sotve crimes from the uniformed cops who spend most of their shifts on patrol or responding to routine catls for help. Page 3 of 7 From: 05/07/2018 15:05 #564 At least 25 Riverside County cops were caught cheating on a promotionai exam. Nobody got fired. 4i9i18,11:10 AM The test consists of a too-question written exam, a 50wquestion computer exam and an oral exam during which deputies must exptain how a detective shoutd respond to example scenarios that change every year. in 2015, applicants were asked to explain how they wouid handie tour scenarios: the death of an infant; a missing dementia patient; prioritizing a heavy caseload: and a case involving an eiected of?cial who had reported a theft. but aiso appeared to be under the in?uence of drugs. (That last scenario appears to be based on the 2014 arrest of Perris City Councilman Julio Rodriguez. who later pteaded guilty to a drug charge and resigned.) Employees are forbidden from discussing or distributing these questions by a standing order from the sheriff?s department. but in reatity, sharing the questions is easy to do. The ore! exams are conducted over a founday span. so anyone who took the test on the first day can give the questions to co- workers who haven?t tested yet. Empioyees are toid during every test not to discuss the exam with anyone to ?maintain a competitive process." In 2015, that ?competitive process? lasted only about 90 minutes. That was how tong it took from the start of the oral exam for the deputy at the beginning of this story to take her test, return to her desk, type out the questions and then give a printout to her colleague. Investigator Lance Colmer. Colmer, who didn?t need the questions for himself because he had passed the exam years ago, then shared the questions with two other deputies, according to the internat affairs records. The two deputies shared the questions with two more deputies, then one of those deputies shared the question with yet another deputy, records state. INVESTIGATION: My tg miggr City Hall them $1ggij it] fggs' ggtirtg?g?ln?i?ti?i?mg- When confronted by internat affairs, Cotmer said that all of this was normal, insisting that deputies were only cheating if they shared the test answers, not the test questions. in two decades with the department. Cotmer said, he had seen deputies openiy discuss and share questions so frequentty he ?assumed it was It was no different when he passed the test back in 2008, he said. ?There has been this culture and a practice in this department of sharing the questions, and sharing the answers. and preparing our friends and co? workers to do well on the exams.? Colmer said during his interview. ?You don?t think that's cheating it you give them a copy of the actual questions?? an investigator responded. didn't think that it was cheating no,? Coimer said. Colmer did not respond to emails sent to him or requests to interview him submitted through the sheriff's department. The Desert Sun also received no response from Stephen Chulak, an attorney for the deputies' union who represented Coimer and six other employees who were implicated in the cheating investigation. Chuiak and internat affairs often ctashed during employee interviews and at one point the attorney accused an investigator of ?bullying? deputies. The rest of the employees spoke to internal affairs without a lawyer. Many of those deputies responded similarly to Colmer, arguing that they had not technicalty cheated because of the specific phrasing in the department?s testing policy. The standing policy called a "general order" forbids employees from distributing any test information that wouid ?give another testing candidate an unfair advantage.? The deputies said they didn?t violate this policy because the test materials weren't actuatly helptut enough to give an advantage. For example, some employees who shared the test topics said they didn?t give anyone an advantage because they weren't the specific test questions. Some employees who shared the questions said they didn?t get an advantage because they didn't have the actual test answers. And employees who got a bulleted list of the answers said they stilt didn't have an advantage because they didn?t reaiize what the document was. or because they didn?t study the fist exciusively, or because they atready knew the answers anyway. Page 4 of 7 From: 05/07/2018 15:07 #564 At least 25 Riverside County cops were caught cheating on a promotional exam. Nobody got tired. arena, 11:10 AM In one of the most extreme cases, a deputy received the exam questions from two different two co?workers, then was emailed an answer list by a senior detective and then speci?calty focused his studies on those questions and answers. He said he still did not believe he had cheated. never asked anyone to send me anything," the deputy told internai affairs investigators. ?it they are going to send it, they are going to send it. I can?t do anything about that.? This deputy is one of the tour cheating suspects who was promoted to the rank of investigator in 2017. The sheriff's department declined to discuss why these emptoyees were promoted, saying it was prohibited by law from commenting on the personnel matters of any individual employee. MORE: rgcorded HIV insult undo Palm Springs kijjers' convictions Beyond the implication of cheating, the internal affairs records obtained by The Desert Sun also reveal numerous instances in which deputies appeared to lie to investigators a ?reable offense. Two deputies were so evasive or unbelievable during their interviews that of?cials immediately expanded the investigation to include ailegations of dishonesty. Another deputy claimed he never sent test information to anyone. then admitted minutes tater that he had actually written each question on toose leaf paper then texted photos of the papers to another deputy who was a close friend. Four other employees made statements that were directly contradicted by another empioyee in a different interview, suggesting that one of them wasn?t telling the truth. But none of these employees were ever proven to be lying, according to the sheriff's department. in its written statement, the department said that "no charges of dishonesty were sustained or supported by the evidence" during the cheating investigation. Peter Johnson. a federal criminal defense attorney and adjunct professor of iaw at UCLA, said any deceit by the deputies would compound the potentiat damage of the cheating scandal, giving defense attorneys an even stronger argument if they try to attack the cops' credibility in court. Cheating is essentially lying, and lying about cheating is just stacking lies on lies, Johnson said, ?If you are willing to cheat to get the job. i think it?s reasonable that you would be willing to cheat to keep the job,? Johnson said. think this woutd really go to the issue of integrity in any case where an of?cer has to make a statement that needs to be relied upon by the pubtic, or a judge, or a prosecutor." ?We all know that you are not supposed to cheat on an exam, and there is a certain trust we put into people not to do it, Just like how we need to trust that when an of?cer writes a report that he shoutd not know that he is not supposed to make false statements. Those two things felt in line together." An email full of answers The subject line of the email read ?Study Materials." but inside there was much more than that. "Assure a criticat incident log is started,? the email said. "See if the person has a cetl phone and have it pinged," it added tater. ?Make sure a neighborhood canvass is done and all statements are tape recorded.? These were just a few of more than 70 answers suggested by Robert Cornett, an investigator at the Lake Elsinore station who received the investigator exam questions on the ?rst day of the 2015 testing cycle, then emailed a fist of suggested answers to employees who hadn?t taken the test yet, according to internal documents and recorded interviews. Throughout the sheriff?s department, cheating had given plenty of employees a sneak peek of the exam questions. giving them the advantage of knowing where to focus their studies. But Cornett?s email went a step further. It didn?t just tetI-test takers what topics to study. it told them what to say. Cornett's email went to three deputies and a corporal. They shared the information with three more deputies and two more corporate. Eventually, the email ended up in the hands of internal affairs, who then backtracked the email chain to Cornett. Page 5 at 7 From: 05/07/2018 15:09 #564 At least 25 Riverside County cops were caught cheating on a promotionai exam. Nobody got tired. atone, 11:10 AM When questioned, Cornett said he didn?t realize what he was doing. Cornett said he sent the email because a deputy cailed him and asked for advice on how to respond to four hypotheticai scenarios a baby death, a missing dementia patient. a heavy casetoad and the arrest of a prominent person. The deputy never explained these scenarios were the same topics on the investigator's exam. Cornett didn?t ask either. Investigator Robert Cornett. right, a Riverside County sheriff?s department employee who was implicated in the 2015 cheating scandal, poses with Sheriff Stan Sniff white being promoted to the position of master investigator In November 2016. (Photo: Riverside County Department) lnternai affairs then questioned that deputy, who confirmed that she did ask Cornett for advice on those four speci?c scenarios but said she had no idea these were the actual test questions. Internal affairs appeared to doubt the truthfulness of both stories. During an interview, an interest investigator said it was ?unreasonable? to believe that the deputy had called Cornett asking about ?four random topics" that just happened to be the four topics on the exam. MORE: Backstage at g_a_y Palm ?xings spot; Qrippiing debt etw owner mgr} However, internal affairs was also suspicious of why Comett distributed the answer sheet exclusively through personal email accounts, which deputies admitted they rarely use to communicate. Cornett atso wrote the perfect title at the top of his answer sheet ?Investigator Questions 2015.? ?it just seems odd that you wouid cal! it ?investigator questions' and that's exactiy what they were but you didn?t know that at the time." an investigator toid Cornett. ?Do you know what I?m saying?? ?Sure,? Cornett answered. saying nothing else. The cheating scandal does not appear to have disrupted Comett?s career in the sheriff?s department. He was promoted to the rank of master investigator in 2016. Earlier that same year, he was given an award for ?investigative excellence? by the Riverside County Law Enforcement Appreciation Committee. Page 6 of 7 From: 05/07/2018 15:14 #564 At ieast 25 Riverside C0unty cops were caught cheating on a promotions! exam. Nobody got fired. 4i9i18, 11:10 AM The sheriff's department declined to comment on Cornett's promotion, again citing police privacy iaws. Cornett did not respond to emaits sent to him or requests to interview him submitted through the sheriff?s department. Despite the widespread sharing of questions in the sheriff's department, and rumors of even broader cheating, it appears that only one emptoyee reported the employees to their supervisors. That whistleblower, a deputy who was offered the exam questions, reported the cheating to a lieutenant, launching the internal investigation. The deputy tater broke into tears white being interviewed for the internai investigation, saying they had been cornered by a terribie choice. if the deputy did nothing, cheating woutd continue unchecked, and only employees who cheated would have a real chance at being promoted. But, if the deputy reporting the cheating to a supervisor, they risked being ostracized by their coileagues and becoming an outcast in the department. ?1 battled with myself because l'rn human,? the deputy said, now sobbing. ?it was obvious what the right thing was to do, but I thought ?everyone etse is doing it. They are all going to cheat and get promoted. I should just do it too. it would be so much easier.? ?i had to make this decision. i knew it was the right one, and was so mad at myself because i was tested and i didn't make the choice instantly. It took me time. My dad taught me better than that.? ?Welt,? an investigator a reaponded. ?You are the oniy one who passed that test.? Reporter Brett Kelman can be reached phone at (7?60) 7784642, by at brett.keiman@desertsun.com, or on Twitter Read or Share this story: Page 7 of 7 From: 05/072'2018 15:15 #564 ATTORNEY on men wneorn ATTORNEY: BAR no: FOR COURT USE ONLY NAME: Shaun A. Sullivan (SBN: 278516) FIRM NAME: The Suilivan Defense STREETADDRESS: 2445 Fifth Ave. Ste 330 CITY: San Diego STATE: CA ZIP coca: 92101 TELEPHONE no: 760?327-1529 FAX N0.: 619-237-0128 ADDRESS: sas@thesuilivandefense.corn ATTORNEY FORmame): Donaid Vincent Brooks COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF Riverside STREET ADDRESS: 30755-0 Auld Road MAILING ADDRESS: 30755?0 Auld Road CITY AND cans: Murietta. CA 92563 BRANCH NAME: Southwest Justice Center CASE NUMBER: PlaintiffiPetitioner: People of the State of California SWF1600759 DefendantiRespondent: Donald Vincent Brooks JUDICSAL OFFICER: PROOF OF SERVICEHCIVIL Check method of service (only one): By Personal Service By Mail By Overnight Delivery DEPARTMENT By Messenger Service By Fax Do not use this form to show service of a summons and complaint or for eiectronic service. See USE OF THIS FORM on page 3. At the time of service I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. 2. My residence or business address is: 2445 Fifth Ave. Ste. 330 San Diego, CA 92101 3. The fax number from which i served the documents is (complete if service was by fax): 4. 0n (date): May 7? 2018 i served the following documents (specify): Notice of and Declaration in Support of Motion for Pretrial Discovery The documents are listed in the Attachment to Proof of Service-Civil (Documents Served) (form 5. i served the documents on the person or persons below, as follows: a. Name of person served: Riverside County District Attorney - Southwest Division b. (Complete if service was by personal service, mail, overnight delivery, or messenger service.) Business or residential address where person was served: Auld Road, 3rd Floor. Murrletta. CA 92563 c. (Complete if service was by fax.) Fax number where person was served: The names. addresses, and other applicable information about persons served is on the Attachment to Proof of Service- Civii {Persons Served) (form 6. The documents were served by the following means (speci?x): a. Cl By personal service. i personally delivered the documents to the persons at the addresses listed in item 5. For a party represented by an attorney, delivery was made to the attorney personally; or by leaving the documents at the attorney's office, in an envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the attorney being served, with a receptionist or an individual in charge of the office; or it there was no person in the office with whom the notice or papers could be left, by leaving them in a conspicuous place in the office between the hours of nine in the morning and five in the evening. (2) For a party, delivery was made to the party or by leaving the documents at the party's residence with some person not younger than 18 years of age between the hours of eight in the morning and six in the evening. Page 1 of 3 Form Approved for Optional Use Code of Civil Procedure, 1011, 1013, 10133. Judicial Council of California 2015.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.306 FOB-040 (Rev. February 1, 2017} Of service) wmvcounscagov From: 05/07/2018 15:17 #564 PCS-040 CASE. NAME: CASE NUMBER: People v. Brooks SWF1600759 6. b. By United States mail. enclosed the documents in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses in item 5 and (specify one}: (1) deposited the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Service, with the postage fully prepaid. (2) Cl placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. i am readily familiar with this business's practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. I am a resident or employed in the county where the mailing occurred. The envelope or package was placed in the mail at (city and state): c. By overnight delivery. enclosed the documents in an envelope or package provided by an overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the persons at the addresses in item 5. placed the envelope or package for collection and overnight delivery at an office or a regularly utilized drop box of the overnight delivery carrier. d. By messenger service. i served the documents by placing them in an envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses listed in item 5 and providing them to a professional messenger service for service. (A declaration by the messenger must accompany this Proof of Service or be contained in the Declaration of Messenger below.) e. By fax transmission. Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by fax transmission, I faxed the documents to the persons at the fax numbers listed in item 5. No error was reported by the fax machine that I used. A copy of the record of the fax transmission, which I printed out. is attached. declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true a correct. Date: 05:13?! 1 8 I Reyna Morales (TYPE on PRINT NAME or DECLARANT) {if item 60' above is checked, the declaration below must be completed or a separate declaration from a messenger must be attached.) DECLARATION OF MESSENGER By personal service. i personally delivered the envelope or package received from the deciarant above to the persons at the addresses listed in item 5. (1) For a party represented by an attorney, delivery was made to the attorney personally; or by leaving the documents at the attorney's of?ce, in an envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the attorney being served, with a receptionist or an individual in charge of the office; or if there was no person in the office with whom the notice or papers could be left, by leaving them in a conspicuous place in the office between the hours of nine in the morning and five in the evening. (2) For a party, delivery was made to the party or by leaving the documents at the party's residence with some person not younger than 18 years of age between the hours of eight in the morning and six in the evening. At the time of service, i was over 18 years of age. i am not a party to the above~referenced legal proceeding. served the envelope or package, as stated above, on (date): declare under penalty of periury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true an Date: 05l07l18 Reyna Morales (NAME OF RANT) [Rev. February 1.20111 Page 2 of3 (Proof of Service) From: 05/07/2018 15:18 #564 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY: STATE BAR NO: For: COURT usg?i ONLY NAME: Shaun A. Sullivan (SBN: 278516) NAME: The Sullivan Defense STREETADDRESSJ 2445 Fifth Ave. Ste. 330 San Diego STATE: CA Zip CODE: 92101 TELEPHONE Nd: 760-327?1529 FAX No: 619-327-0128 EMML ADDRESS: sas@thesuilivandetensecom anonnsv son (name): Donald Vincent Brooks SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF Riversdle STREET ADDRESS: Auld Road nooness: Auld Road AND ZIP CODE: Marietta, CA 92563 BRANCH NAME: Southwest Justice Center CASE NUMBER: PlaintitfiPetitioner: People of the State of California SWF1600759 DefendantiRespondent: Donald Vincent Brooks OFFICER: PROOF OF Check method of service (only one): :1 By Personal Service By Mail By Overnight Delivery DEPARTMENT: By Messenger Service By Fax Do not use this form to show service of a summons and complaint or for electronic service. See USE OF THIS FORM on page 3. At the time of service i was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. 2. My residence or business address is: 2445 Fifth Ave. Ste. 330 San Diego, CA 92101 3. The fax number from which served the documents is {complete if service was by fax): 4. On (date): May 7, 2018 I served the following documents (specify): Notice of and Declaration in Support of Motion for Pretrial Discovery The documents are listed in the Attachment to Proof of Service?Civil (Documents Served) (form 5. served the documents on the person or persons below, as follows: a. Name of person served: Riverside County Sheriff Custodian of Records b. (Complete if service was by personal service, mail, overnight delivery, or messenger service.) Business or residentiai address where person was served: Sheriff?s Administration 4095 Lemon St. Riverside CA 92501 c. (Complete if service was by fax.) Fax number where person was served: The names, addresses, and other applicable information about persons served is on the Attachment to Proof of Service? Ciw'i {Persons Served) (form 6. The documents were served by the following means (specify): a. By personal service. personaliy delivered the documents to the persons at the addresses listed in item 5. (1) For a party represented by an attorney. delivery was made to the attorney personally; or by leaving the documents at the attorney's office, in an envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the attorney being served, with a receptionist or an individuat in charge of the office; or if there was no person in the of?ce with whom the notice or papers could be left, by leaving them in a conspicuous place in the of?ce between the hours of nine in the morning and five in the evening. (2) For a party. delivery was made to the party or by leaving the documents at the party's residence with some person not younger than 18 years of age between the hours of eight in the morning and six in the evening. Page 1 of 3 Form Approved for Optional Use Code olCiviI Procedure, 1011, 1013. 10133, Judicial Council of California 2015.5; Cal. Rules of Court. rule 2.306 February 1, 2017] (Proof Of SBWICG) From: 05/07/2018 15:20 #564 PCS-O40 CASE NAME: CASE NUMBER: People v. Brooks SWF1600759 6. b. By United States mail. enclosed the documents in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses in item 5 and (specify one): (1) l1] deposited the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Service, with the postage fully prepaid. (2) placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this business's practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States F?ostal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. I am a resident or employed in the county where the mailing occurred. The envelope or package was placed in the mail at {city and state): c. By overnight delivery. enclosed the documents in an envelope or package provided by an overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the persons at the addresses in item 5. I placed the envelope or package for collection and overnight delivery at an office or a regularly utilized drop box of the overnight delivery carrier. d. By messenger service. i served the documents by placing them in an envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses listed in item 5 and providing them to a professional messenger service for service. (A declaration by the messenger must accompany this Proof of Service or be contained in the Declaration of Messenger below.) a. By fax transmission. Based on an agreement of the parties to accept service by tax transmission, faxed the documents to the persons at the fax numbers listed in item 5. No error was reported by the fax machine that I used. A copy of the record of the tax transmission, which I printed out, is attached. declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: 05ft)?! 18 Reyna Morales on PRINT NAME or DECLARANT) (if item 6d above is checked, the declaration below must be completed or a separate declaration from a messenger must be attached.) DECLARATION OF MESSENGER By personal service. i personally delivered the envelope or package received from the declarant above to the persons at the addresses listed in item 5. (1) For a party represented by an attorney, delivery was made to the attorney personally; or by leaving the documents at the attorney's office, in an envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the attorney being served, with a receptionist or an individual in charge of the office; or if there was no person in the office with whom the notice or papers could be left, by leaving them in a conspicuous place in the office between the hours of nine in the morning and five in the evening. (2) For a party, delivery was made to the party or by leaving the documents at the party's residence with some person not younger than 18 years of age between the hours of eight in the morning and six in the evening. At the time of service, i was over 18 years of age. I am not a party to the above-referenced legal proceeding. served the swamps or package, as stated above. on (date): declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and co ct. Date: 05i07tl8 Reyna Morales or DECLARANT) (SIGNATURE or {mower} POSJMO (Rev. February 1,2011} 0F Page 2 of3 (Proof of Service)