Colorado’s second-highest court has clarified that criminal defendants are not automatically entitled to have a trial judge review and possibly release a police officer’s personnel file, but instead must show the request is factually relevant and not a “general fishing expedition.”

Last month, the state’s Court of Appeals determined a La Plata County judge acted appropriately when he declined to review the files of William Benjamin Cline VI’s arresting officer “in camera,” meaning behind closed doors. Cline stood trial in 2019 for assaulting a police officer and argued he had a right to information in Deputy Antaeus Draughon’s file related to his credibility.

However, “Cline did not articulate any factual basis for believing that Deputy Draughon’s personnel file includes complaints of excessive force or dishonesty. His claim that such documents exist was mere speculation,” wrote Judge Jaclyn Casey Brown in the three-member appellate panel’s Nov. 23 opinion.

Draughon and Deputy Darin Christensen responded to Cline’s Durango home in February 2019 after a report that Cline had crashed his golf cart in a snow drift and entered a neighbor’s house. The deputies knocked on Cline’s door and ordered him outside, but Cline, who was intoxicated, instead invited them inside.

The deputies then handcuffed Cline and a physical altercation ensued. While Christensen left to move the police vehicle closer, Cline reportedly kicked Draughon, prompting the deputy to punch Cline and place him in a chokehold. Cline grabbed Draughon’s genitals and Christensen then returned to tase him. During the ride to the jail, Cline physically damaged the vehicle and yelled racial epithets at Draughon, who is Black.

A jury convicted Cline of trespass, assault, harassment and criminal mischief and he received a sentence of two years in prison.

Before trial, Cline issued a subpoena for Draughon’s personnel file, specifically for any information about his credibility, misconduct and past use of excessive force, plus any internal investigations. La Plata County responded that there were no internal investigations for Draughon and otherwise sought to cast aside the request for documents.

Then-District Court Judge William L. Herringer granted the county’s motion, ruling Cline had “failed to show a specific factual basis demonstrating reasonable likelihood that documents exist within the file that would be relevant.”

He cited the Colorado Supreme Court’s 2010 decision of People v. Spykstra. Although Spykstra was not about police officers’ files, the court laid out five factors criminal defendants must satisfy to proceed with a subpoena for documents, including a reasonable likelihood the materials exist, that they are relevant to the case and the request is “not intended as a general fishing expedition.”

The court added that its decision about whether trial judges should release requested files did not amount to a “mandate” that judges review such materials in camera in the first place. To fill the gap, Cline seized on another Supreme Court decision from 1983, People v. Walker, which did involve a defendant’s request for the files of officers involved in his arrest.

There, the Supreme Court held a defendant charged with assault on a police officer is entitled to know of any excessive force complaints against the officer. Cline argued the Walker decision meant the trial judge needed to at least review Draughon’s file in camera to see if any information warranted disclosure.

But the Court of Appeals pointed out that even under the Supreme Court’s directive, a defendant still has to show the requested information likely exists and is relevant to his case.

“Walker did not address what showing a defendant must make to be entitled to an in camera review of the officer’s personnel file, nor did it mandate that a court must conduct an in camera review any time a defendant asks for an officer’s personnel file,” Brown wrote.

She added that if the Supreme Court wanted to exempt defendants from the Spykstra factors when requesting an officer’s personnel file, “it would have said so.”

The appellate panel also rejected Cline’s other arguments on appeal. His main contention was that evidence existed of Cline acting in self-defense by using force against Draughon because the deputies unlawfully entered his home. Brown noted that Cline himself invited them in, and the Supreme Court has required there to be a “knowing violation of the criminal law” for self-defense to be justified against an intruder.

The case is People v. Cline.