LOS ANGELES, CA – The California Court of Appeal last Monday issued an order delaying the trial of a former Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office advisor, who is accused of violating hacking statutes, according to the Los Angeles Time.
The ruling requires state prosecutors to justify their case before the court decides whether it can proceed, the Times added.
The accused faces six felony charges for allegedly using confidential information obtained during her prior role with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD).
The Times reported prosecutors from the state Attorney General’s office argued that in 2021 the accused improperly sent court records containing information about deputies with disciplinary histories to a colleague to evaluate for inclusion in internal databases tracking officer misconduct.
The Court of Appeal’s order set a hearing date for April 2 in Los Angeles to determine whether the trial, initially slated to begin in January, will move forward.
Defense attorneys filed a motion in October arguing there was insufficient probable cause for the case, contending the records in question were public documents that did not require LASD’s permission for use, reported the Times.
“The only thing she shared was public court records. Public records belong to the public, not the LASD,” stated one of the accused’s defense attorneys, who welcomed the appeals court’s intervention as a rare but critical move.
Prosecutors allege several names included in the records originated from the accused’s previous access to LASD’s confidential personnel files.
While some records were linked to lawsuits filed by deputies seeking to overturn disciplinary actions, state investigators found 11 names had not been publicly disclosed in media or court records, raising questions about how they were identified, the LA Times wrote.
During a preliminary hearing, testimony revealed, the Times said, the accused did not download the information from LASD’s personnel database but could have conducted searches linking the confidential files with public records.
Superior Court Judge Sam Ohta dismissed two charges for lack of evidence but allowed six charges to proceed, citing potential links between the accused’s searches and the data’s origin.
The state attorney general’s office contends that the accused should have known she could not use LASD’s data in her subsequent role at the district attorney’s office without explicit permission, the Times added.
