Plaintiffs here bring a taxpayer action under Code of Civil Procedure § 526a and a writ of mandate, challenging the legality of a confidential informant program the OC Sheriff is alleged running in the county jails.
The trial court dismissed for lack of standing. But that’s wrong.
Section 525a conveys broad standing in taxpayers to sue to enjoin unlawful government activity. And although § 3369 prohibits injunctions to “enforce a penal law,” against criminal conduct, it doesn’t apply here, even though some of the allegations implicate the OC DA and Sheriff in violating the provisions of the Penal Code that codify the Brady doctrine. As the Court explains § 3369’s reference to penal law is to criminal conduct, not criminal procedure.
There’s also standing for the writ claim. Mandamus standing generally requires the plaintiff to be beneficially interested. But there’s an exception for public interest claims. The exception is subject to some prudential limitations. For instance, it can’t be used to collaterally attack other proceedings. But none of them apply here.
Reversed.
No comments:
Post a Comment