Navarro

People v. Navarro

Good Law
138 Cal. App. 4th 146·41 Cal. Rptr. 3d 164
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 30, 2006B173591, B175513California9,104 words

Opinion

Opinion

Rubin, J.

ISSUES PRESENTED

A lawyer goes to the police, tells them her clients are committing a string of crimes, and also tells them where to look for evidence of those crimes. Based on that information—which the lawyer learned through her representation of the clients—the police obtain a search warrant and find the evidence, leading to criminal charges against the clients. Should the search warrant be quashed and all evidence found through the warrant suppressed as a remedy for the lawyer’s alleged breach of the attorney-client privilege? Because the government did not procure or induce the breach, we conclude the answer is no. When the police use a confidential informant to obtain a warrant, and the defendant seeks to quash the warrant because he believes the informant was his lawyer and the police procured a breach of the lawyer-client privilege, we also conclude that an in camera review is the proper procedure to decide such a motion.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Acting on a tip from a confidential informant, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s deputies obtained a warrant in April 2002 to search an auto body repair shop and the homes of several members of the Navarro family,…

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.