P. v.NAVARRO

Filed 3/30/06 (opn. on rehearing)

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, and ORIGINAL PROCEEDING. Candace J. Beason and Clifford L. Klein, Judges. Appeal affirmed; petition for writ of prohibition or mandate is denied.

Angelyn Gates for Defendant and Appellant and Petitioner.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Michael R. Johnsen and Jonathan J. Kline, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Steve Cooley, District Attorney, Patrick Moran and Matthew G. Monforton, Deputy District Attorneys, for Real Party in Interest.

No appearance by respondent superior court.

_________________________

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.^[1] 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.^[2]

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, including those of brothers Alejandro and Edward Navarro. Based on evidence seized from those locations, Alejandro, Edward, and Edward's wife, Donna Navarro (the Navarro defendants), were charged with various counts related to their alleged operation of a car theft ring.^[3]

After reviewing the sheriff's affidavit submitted in support of the search warrant, the three Navarro defendants became convinced that their sister, Elizabeth, had been the sheriff's unnamed confidential informant. Elizabeth is a lawyer and had previously represented some of the Navarro defendants in both civil and criminal matters. Donna and Alejandro brought motions to: (1) order disclosure of the identity of the informant (Evid. Code, §§ 1041, 1042); and (2) quash the search warrant, which they contended would thereby lead to a failure of the search â€