People v. Acevedo
147 Cal. Rptr. 3d 467
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Appellants were arrested based on wiretap-led seizures of cocaine, meth, marijuana, firearms, and over $1.2 million in proceeds.
- Information charging multiple drug offenses was filed; appellants pleaded not guilty and later no contest after discovery/suppression motions.
- Defendants sought unredacted wiretap documentation and suppression of wiretap-derived evidence; motions were denied.
- Wiretap orders (Nov 2005–Apr 2006) were issued with sealing under Evidence Code 1040–1042 and Hobbs procedures.
- Discovery disclosure provided redacted materials; in camera review produced some unredacted portions; other parts remained sealed.
- Trial court denied suppression after in camera review; appellants entered negotiated pleas and challenged on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do Hobbs procedures apply to wiretap authorizations? | Hobbs applies to search warrants, not wiretap orders. | Hobbs procedures extend to wiretap authorizations for balancing confidentiality and defense access. | Hobbs procedures apply to wiretap authorizations. |
| Was disclosure of unredacted wiretap documentation required? | Unredacted affidavits and reports must be produced to challenge sufficiency. | Privileges under Evidence Code 1040–1042 protect confidential information; in camera review suffices. | Trial court properly limited disclosure; in camera review upheld nondisclosure to protect privileges. |
| Was there error in denying suppression of wiretap-derived evidence? | Insufficient probable cause/necessity; suppression warranted. | Affidavits demonstrated probable cause and necessity; court acted within discretion. | No error; evidence from wiretaps properly admitted. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Hobbs, 7 Cal.4th 948 (Cal. 1994) (approved in camera balancing procedures for confidential information in warrants and wiretaps)
- People v. Luttenberger, 50 Cal.3d 1 (Cal. 1990) (balance disclosure vs. confidentiality; informs limits on informant disclosure)
- U.S. v. Henderson, 241 F.3d 638 (9th Cir. 2000) (in camera hearing as preferred method for informant disclosure issues)
- U.S. v. Ippolito, 774 F.2d 1482 (9th Cir. 1985) (Franks-type considerations apply to wiretap necessity review)
- People v. Leon, 40 Cal.4th 376 (Cal. 2007) (wiretapping privacy protections; state act aligns with federal standards)