California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Summage, F067237 (Cal. App. 2015):
On appeal, defendant asserts the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence because the detention was unlawful. Hence, he argues the fruits of that detention should have been excluded. Defendant also asks this court to independently review the materials disclosed in camera pursuant to his motion made under Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 (Pitchess) to ensure all materials subject to disclosure were in fact provided to the defense. We reverse, finding his motion to suppress should have been granted.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.