This case was last updated from California Courts of Appeal on 12/01/2022 at 00:19:09 (UTC).

The People v. The Superior Court of San Francisco City and County

Case Summary

On 09/16/2022 The People filed an Other lawsuit against The Superior Court of San Francisco City and County. This case was filed in California Courts of Appeal, First Appellate District - Division 3 located in Statewide, California. The Judge overseeing this case is Tong, Michelle. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ***6120

  • Filing Date:

    09/16/2022

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • County, State:

    Statewide, California

Judge Details

Trial Court Judge

Tong, Michelle

 

Party Details

Petitioner

The People

Respondent

The Superior Court of San Francisco City and County

Interested Party

Rabira Pollano

Other

Justin Urena

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner Attorneys

Brian Albert Bringardner

Attorney at San Francisco District Attorney's Office

350 Rhode Island Street North Building, Suite 400 N

San Francisco, CA 94103

Brooke Ashley Jenkins

Attorney at San Francisco District Attorney

350 Rhode Island Street North Building, Suite 400 N

San Francisco, CA 94103

Office of the Attorney General

455 Golden Gate Avenue - Suite 11000

San Francisco, CA 94102-7004

Interested Party Attorneys

Sylvia T. Nguyen

Attorney at San Francisco Public Defender's Office

555 7Th St

San Francisco, CA 94103-4709

Christopher Michael Garcia

Attorney at San Francisco Public Defender

555 7Th St

San Francisco, CA 94103-4709

Other Attorneys

David Blaine Harrison

877 Bryant Street, Suite 300

San Francisco, CA 94103

First District Appellate Project

Attorney at First District Appellate Project

475 Fourteenth Street, Suite 650

Oakland, CA 94612

Court Documents

Court documents are not available for this case.

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/30/2022
  • DispositionDescription: Petition denied or dismissed after alternative writ or palma issued.; Disposition Type: Final THE COURT: By its Order filed November 30, 2022, respondent superior court complied with this Court's alternative writ of mandate. Therefore, the alternative writ is discharged and the petition on file herein is denied/dismissed in its entirety.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/30/2022
  • DocketDescription: Case complete.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/30/2022
  • DocketDescription: Petition denied or dismissed after alternative writ or palma issued.; Notes: THE COURT: By its Order filed November 30, 2022, respondent superior court complied with this Court?s alternative writ of mandate. Therefore, the alternative writ is discharged and the petition on file herein is denied/dismissed in its entirety.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/30/2022
  • DocketDescription: Filed proof of service.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/30/2022
  • DocketDescription: Filed letter from:; Notes: From DA regarding alt writ. (vacated)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/21/2022
  • DocketDescription: Note:; Notes: certified copies of alt writ sent to all parties with copy of order.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/21/2022
  • DocketDescription: Order filed.; Notes: ORDER ISSUING ALTERNATIVE WRIT OF MANDATE THE COURT: Having conducted a detailed review of the entire record, this court orders as follows. It appears respondent superior court erred in its order of August 17, 2022, by failing to consider application of the exigent circumstances exception and/or the good faith exception in deciding the motions to suppress of real party in interest Rabira Pollano. The warrant requirement is excused when "exigent circumstances" support a warrantless search. (People v. Bowen (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 130, 138 [exigent circumstances exist when there is an emergency situation " ' " 'requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect or destruction of evidence' " ' "].) In deciding whether exigent circumstances exist, a court should consider not only the potential danger to the victim, but also the threat to officers and to the public. (See ibid.) Additionally, the exclusionary rule applies " ' "only if it can be said that the law enforcement officer had knowledge, or may properly be charged with knowledge, that the search was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment." ' " (People v. Macabeo (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1206, 1220.) California courts consider application of the good faith exception even when officers fail to obtain a warrant in advance of a search. (See ibid. [collecting cases]; see also People v. Lange (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 1114.) Accordingly, respondent court erred in failing to do so. Therefore, let an alternative writ of mandate issue commanding respondent court in People v. Rabira Pollano (Super. Ct. S.F. City and County, 2022, Nos. 22001523, SCN 235100), to set aside and vacate its order of August 17, 2022, and to enter a new and different order stating that the court will reconsider its ruling on real party in interest's motions to suppress, and schedule any further proceedings it deems necessary to do so, consistent with this court's order issuing the alternative writ of mandate; or, in the alternative, to appear and show cause before Division Three of this court why a peremptory writ of mandate should not be granted. If respondent superior court complies with this court's directives as set forth above and does so on or before December 1, 2022 (unless respondent requests and obtains from this court additional time for compliance), the court will discharge the alternative writ and dismiss/deny the petition in its entirety. Petitioner shall immediately inform this court by letter of respondent court's decision, and attach to that letter any new orders issued by respondent related to the alternative writ of mandate. Should respondent court choose not to follow the above procedure, but instead to appear and show cause before this court why a peremptory writ of mandate should not issue, this matter will be heard before Division Three when ordered on calendar. The alternative writ is to be issued, served and filed on or before November 21, 2022, and shall be deemed served upon mailing by the clerk of this court of certified copies of the alternative writ and this order to all parties and to respondent superior court. A written return to the alternative writ shall be served and filed on or before December 21, 2022, and a reply to the return shall be served and filed on or before January 5, 2023. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.487(b).) If, however, respondent superior court complies with the alternative writ, and proof thereof is filed herein on or before those dates, then no return or reply need be filed.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/21/2022
  • DocketDescription: Alternative writ or OSC issued.; Notes: ALTERNATIVE WRIT OF MANDATE To the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the City and County of San Francisco, Greetings: The petition for writ of mandate on file herein having been considered, and good cause appearing for the issuance of this alternative writ of mandate, WE COMMAND YOU, forthwith upon receipt of this writ to either: (a) Vacate your order of August 17, 2022, in People v. Rabira Pollano (Super. Ct. S.F. City and County, 2022, Nos. 22001523, SCN 235100), and enter a new and different order stating that the court will reconsider its ruling on petitioner's motions to suppress, and scheduling any further proceedings it deems necessary to do so, consistent with this court's order issuing the alternative writ of mandate. You should entertain objections, if any, to any decision to comply with the alternative writ. (See Brown, Winfield & Canzoneri, Inc. v. Superior Court (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1233, 1250, fn. 10.) OR; (b) In the alternative, show cause before this court, when ordered on calendar, why a peremptory writ of mandate should not issue. Respondent court shall make a decision whether to comply with the directive of paragraph (a) on or before December 1, 2022 (unless respondent requests and obtains from this court additional time for compliance). If respondent court chooses to comply, the alternative writ will be discharged and the petition will be dismissed/denied in its entirety. If respondent court instead elects to show cause, the matter will be heard when ordered on calendar. Witness the Honorable Carin Fujisaki, Acting Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Three. Attest my hand and the Seal of this Court this 21st day of November, 2022.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/28/2022
  • DocketDescription: Filed proof of service.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/28/2022
  • DocketDescription: Reply filed to:; Notes: "REPLY TO REAL PARTY IN INTEREST'S INFORMAL OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND PROHIBITION"

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
1 More Docket Entries
  • 10/21/2022
  • DocketDescription: Informal response filed by:; Notes: Real Party in Interest: Rabira Pollano Attorney: Christopher Michael Garcia

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/21/2022
  • DocketBrief: Informal response filed by:; Party Attorney: Real Party in Interest: Rabira PollanoAttorney: Christopher Michael Garcia

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/06/2022
  • DocketDescription: Stay order filed.; Notes: THE COURT: Pending consideration of the petition filed herein, the trial set for October 20, 2022, in Dept. 22 before the Honorable Christopher Hite, in San Francisco County Superior Court Case No. 22001523, SCN 235100, is stayed pending further order of this Court. On or before October 21, 2022, real party in interest may serve and file informal opposition to the above-captioned petition. Any reply shall be filed no later than October 28, 2022.

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/16/2022
  • DocketDescription: Filed proof of service.; Notes: of Exhibits in Support of Writ of Mandate on all parties

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/16/2022
  • DocketDescription: Filed proof of service.; Notes: of Writ of Mandate on all parties

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/16/2022
  • DocketDescription: Filed proof of service.; Notes: of Exhibits - Electronic Service

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/16/2022
  • DocketDescription: Filed proof of service.; Notes: of Writ of Mandate and Prohibition re Electronic Service

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/16/2022
  • DocketDescription: Exhibits lodged.; Notes: Exhibits 1 - 15

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 09/16/2022
  • DocketDescription: Filed petition for writ of:; Notes: Mandate and Prohibition Application for Stay(Trial set for October 20, 2022 in Dept. 22, the Honorable Judge Christopher Hite)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/17/2022
  • DocketTrial Court Name: San Francisco County Superior Court - Main; County: San Francisco; Trial Court Case Number: 22001523; Trial Court Judge: Tong, Michelle

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Superior Court of San Francisco County is a litigant

Latest cases where People is a litigant