People Ex Rel. Lockyer v. Superior Court

Good Law
2000 Cal. App. LEXIS 689·2000 Daily Journal DAR 9615·83 Cal. App. 4th 387·99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 646·2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7282
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 29, 2000D035689California7,833 words

Opinion

Opinion

Huffman, J.

This proceeding concerns the extent to which the attorney-client and work product privileges may be used by a public prosecutor who is the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation to prevent documents seized pursuant to validly issued and executed search warrants from being reviewed by law enforcement. In this criminal investigation of real party in interest Deputy District Attorney (DDA) Peter J. Longanbach (Longanbach), the People of the State of California, through the Office of the California Attorney General (AG), petition for a writ of mandate/prohibition after respondent Superior Court of San Diego County (the court) upheld Longanbach’s privilege claims to certain documents seized pursuant to search warrants issued for specified areas of the DA’s office and Longanbach’s residence. After conducting in camera reviews under Penal Code section 1524, subdivision (c) to ascertain the validity of the claimed privileges for the sealed material taken from each location, the court ordered the privileged documents returned to Longanbach and reappointed a special master to review the contents of computer backup tapes in the DA’s possession.

We stayed enforcement of the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.