The Livermore Police Department presents a Brady/Giglio concern because one of its former officers, Daniel Black, was implicated in the multi-agency Bay Area police sexual-exploitation scandal involving Jasmine Abuslin, publicly known as Celeste Guap. The scandal involved officers across several Bay Area law-enforcement agencies and raised direct concerns about officer abuse of status, sexual exploitation of a vulnerable young woman, failure to report misconduct, misuse of law-enforcement access, and institutional credibility. Livermore police confirmed in September 2016 that an officer under investigation in connection with the Celeste Guap scandal had resigned after the department completed its investigation.
Alameda County prosecutors later identified the former Livermore officer as Daniel Black. Reporting stated that Black faced misdemeanor charges connected to engaging in prostitution, lewd conduct in public, and providing alcohol to a minor, arising from allegations that he met Abuslin, took her to restaurants, and engaged in sexual acts with her in his motor home in Berkeley and Albany parking lots. The allegations were part of a broader law-enforcement sexual-exploitation scandal involving officers from Oakland, Livermore, the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office, and other agencies.
The credibility concern was aggravated by prosecutor statements that Black had been the subject of prior complaints. KQED reported that Deputy District Attorney Sabrina Farrell told the court Black had previously been accused of recording himself having sex with someone without permission and had been placed on desk duty because of a separate complaint involving how he handled a report from a victim. Those allegations, whether criminally adjudicated or not, are Brady/Giglio material because they bear on officer truthfulness, abuse of authority, treatment of vulnerable people, report-handling integrity, sexual misconduct, and the reliability of officer-created narratives.
The criminal matter ultimately produced a no-contest plea. In February 2017, Black pleaded no contest to one misdemeanor count of lewd conduct in public; other counts were dismissed as part of the plea agreement, and reporting stated that the case could be dismissed if he complied with the agreement’s conditions. For Brady List purposes, that disposition does not erase the impeachment significance of the underlying conduct. Brady/Giglio scrutiny is not limited to felony convictions or sustained criminal charges. It applies to evidence bearing on the credibility, bias, motive, dishonesty, misconduct, or reliability of a government witness.
The Livermore concern is narrower than agencies where misconduct reached command structure, department-wide reform, or systemic civil-rights findings. However, it remains materially significant because the involved conduct occurred within the same regional officer-exploitation scandal that exposed a network of sworn personnel using police status, law-enforcement access, and institutional relationships to exploit a vulnerable person. Under Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States, prosecutors must disclose impeachment evidence affecting government witnesses. Under Napue v. Illinois, prosecutors may not permit materially false or misleading testimony to stand uncorrected. Under Kyles v. Whitley, impeachment evidence known to police is attributable to the prosecution for disclosure purposes.
Accordingly, any prosecution relying on Daniel Black, any Livermore Police Department record touched by Black, or any Livermore Police Department witness with knowledge of the Celeste Guap investigation should require affirmative Brady/Giglio disclosure. Prosecutors should disclose all officer-specific impeachment material, all Livermore investigative and disciplinary records connected to Black, all records concerning his resignation, all prior complaint materials bearing on credibility, all criminal charging and plea records, all internal-affairs findings, and all affected-case reviews. Where Livermore Police Department personnel participated in, supervised, reviewed, or failed to disclose material connected to the scandal, those records should be treated as constitutionally significant impeachment material rather than discretionary personnel background.
