SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COLINTY OF LOS ANGELES, NORTHEAST DISTRICT

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

M.C. No. Citation No

Plaintiff,
V

l't AMENDED
MISDEMEANOR COMPLAINT

MARK L. NANSEN (DOB:02114150) AND ROBERTA NANSEN (DOB 09/0 6l s 5),

:

Defendant

The undersigned is informed and believes that:

COLINT

On or about July I ,2OlI, through and including the present, in the above named judicial district, in violation of South Pasadena Municipal Code Section36.640.040(a), a misdemeanor, was committed by Mar:k L. Nansen and Roberta Nansen who did unlawfully maintain unpermitted construction of retaining walls at the property known as 2145 Hanscom Drive and the vacant lot adjacent to 2145 Hanscom Drive, parcel number 5308-023-008, South Pasadena, California.

COLINT 2
On or about July 1, 20II, through and including the present, in the above named judicial district, in violation of South Pasadena Municipal Code Section 103.1, a misdemeanor, was committed by Mark L. Nansen and Roberta Nansen who did unlawfully maintain unpermitted grading at the property known as 2145 Hanscom Drive and the vacant lot adjacentfo 2145 Hanscom Drive, parcel number 5308-023-008, South Pasadena, California.

COUNT

On or about July 1, 2011, through and including the present, n the above named judicial district, in violation of South Pasadena Municipal Code Section 36.640.040(a), a misdemeanor, was committed by Mark L. Nansen and Roberta Nansen who did unlawfully maintain unpermitted construction of a swimming pool at the property known as 2145 Hanscom Drive and the vacant lot adjacentto 2145 Hanscom Drive, parcel number 5308-023-008, South Pasadena, California.
COMPLAINT
1

COUNT 4
On or about July l, 20II, through and including the present, in the above named judicial district, in violation of South Pasadena Municipal Code Section9.2.l, as adopted by Los Angeles County 80-12, a misdemeanor, was committed by Mark L. Nansen and Roberta Nansen who did unlawfully maintain unpermitted electrical at the property known as 2145 Hanscom Drive and the vacant lot adjacent to 2145 Hanscom Drive, parcel number 5308-023-008, South Pasadena, California.
++J++

coLrNT

On or about July 1, 2}ll, through and including the present, in the above named judicial district, in violation of South Pasadena Municipal Code Section 9.3, as adopted by Los Angeles County Plumbing Code Section 101.4.1, a misdemeanor, was committed by Mark L. Nansen and Roberta Nansen who did unlawfully maintain unpermitted plumbing at the property known as 2145 Hanscom Drive and the vacant lot adjacent to 2145 Hanscom Drive, parcel number 5308023-008, South Pasadena, Califomia.

COUNT

On or about July I ,2011, through and including the present, in the above named judicial district, in violation of South Pasadena Municipal Code Section36.640.040(a), a misdemeanor, was committed by Mark L. Nansen and Roberta Nansen who did unlawfully maintain unpermitted construction of a canopy at the property known as 2145 Hanscom Drive and the vacant lot adjacentto 2145 Hanscom Drive, parcel number 5308-023-008, South Pasadena, California.

COLINT 7
On or about July 1, 201I, through and including the present, in the above named judicial district, in violation of South Pasadena Municipal Code Section 36.640.040(a), a misdemeanor, was committed by Mark L. Nansen and Roberta Nansen who did unlawfully maintain unpermitted construction of a covered patio at the property known as 2145 Hanscom Drive and the vacant lot adjacentto 2145 Hanscom Drive, parcel number 5308-023-008, South Pasadena, California.

COUNT

On or about July 1, 20II, through and including the present, in the above named judicial district, in violation of South Pasadena Municipal Code Section 103.3, a misdemeanor, was committed by Mark L. Nansen who did unlawfully violate the stop work order between March 23,2011 and July l,2}ll at the property known as 2145 Hanscom Drive and the vacant lot adjacent to 2145 Hanscom Drive, parcel number 5308-023-008, South Pasadena, California.
COMPLAINT 2

NOTICE TO DEFENDANT AND DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY

Pursuant to Penal Code Sections 1054.5.(b), the People are hereby informally requesting that defense counsel provide discovery to the People as required by Penal Code Section 1054.3.

I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT TFIE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT AND THAT THIS COMPLAINT CONSISTS OF 8 CO[TNT(S).

Executed at South Pasadena, California on

Declarant and Complainant Jamaar Boyd-Weatherby, City Prosecutor

COMPLAINT

2
J

JONES & MAYER Jamaar Boyd-Weatherby, Esq. SBN 230838 3777 North Harbor Boulevard Fullerton, California 92835 4) 446-1400

4
S

) 446-t448
People of the State of California

6 7
8

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

9 10

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, NORTHEAST DISTRICT

1l
12

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA,

Case

No. I 4H03330

ru
"ffi

ffi

Plaintiff,
13

V.

t4
t5
r6

MARK L. NANS EN 02lt4ls0) AND (DoB :09106155), ROBERTA NAN

Defendants

OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SUPPRESS AND QUASH EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE 1538.5

I7
18

t9
20
21

Defendant's Motion Is Procedurallv Deficient

The City of South Pasadena ("the City") obtained a warrant to search the property owned by Mark and Roberta Nansen ("Nansens") on July 1, 2011. See, Defendant's

22
23

Exhibit

l. V/hile the defense is challenging the warrant, they did not speciff the exact
It can be speculated that the defense is attacking the warrant

basis for their challenge.

24
25

pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5(bxi) ("the warrant is insuffcient on its face").

26 27
28

-1OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SUPPRESS AND QUASH EVIDENCE

I
2 J

The W

Is Sufficient

In order to determine if the warrant is sufficient, the Court must determine if "the affidavit avers competent evidence sufficient to lead
a reasonably prudent man to believe

4
5

that there is a basis for the search." People v. Christian,2T Cal. App. 3d 554,559 (1972) The warrant is to be viewed "in a commonsense way rather than technically." People
Kesey, 250 Cal.App.2d 669, 67 I (1967).
v.

6 7
8

The defendants assert a number of "challenges" to the warrant. However, none the challenges go to whether there is a "reasonable basis for the search." Marlon

of

9 10
11

Ramirez' declaration established that he was a code enforcement officer for South
Pasadena andthaf he personally observed the violations of the municipal code. (Defense

Exhibit

1,

Declaration of Marlon Ramirez ("Dec. M. Ramirez')n

l,

lines 3-4 andf[6,

l2
l3
T4 15

lines 14-18). Code Enforcement Officer Ramirez observed "a new pool, concrete deck
adjacent to the pool and a walkway leading to the pool that were built on a flat areathat the Property owners' had graded without a permit." (Defense Exhibit 1, Dec. M.

Ramirez fl 6, lines 14-18). The work was done without the required permits. (Id.) Enforcement Off,rcer Ramirez also noted that the property owner had built a structure to
conceal the "illegal work" from being observed from the public right of

16

l7
l8
19

way. (Def. Exh.

l, Dec. M. Ramirez,fl'/,lines

19-22.)

As demonstrated by the declaration, Code Enforcement Officer Ramirez directly

observed the violations of the South Pasadena Municipal Code. Based upon his

20
21

observation, the code enforcement officer provided the court with sufficient information to "lead a reasonably prudent man to believe that there is a basis for the search."

22
23

Christian,2T Cal. App. 3d at 559. It is unclear what additional information the defense
seeking to determine the existence of a crime. As such, it must be determined that the

24
25

warrant is sufficient and the motion should be denied.

26 27 28
a

OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SUPPRESS AND QUASH EVIDENCE

I
2 J 4
5

The Nansens Had Notice of th eC

's Desire to Insnect the Pronertv

One of the many collateral attacks that the Defense made against the warrant was
that the City failed to request an inspection of the property prior to June 24,2011. The

Defendant's submitted declarations stating"that at no time did anyone from the City of
South Pasadena seek my personal consent to inspect my residential property prior to June

6 7
8

24,2011." ( Defense's Penal Code 1538.5 Motion, Declaration of Mark Nansen fl 4,

Lines ll-12 and Declaration of Roberta Nansen fl 4, Lines 9-10.) While the attack on
the motion is decidedly beyond the "four corners of the waffat", the People must
address this

9 10
11

claim. It must be emphasizedthatthe statements that were made within the

declarations are false. Evidence Code section 452(d) allows the Court to take judicial notice of any record of a court within this state. The People request that the court take

t2
13

judicial notice of the letter that was attached

as an

exhibit from the Defense's January 19,

2012 "Motion to Dismiss Mark Nansen For Due Process Violations." The defense

t4
15

included a copy of the March 23,2011 "Stop Work Order" frorn the City of South
Pasadena to the Nansens as

Exhibit 1. Within the Stop Work Order, the City stated, in all

I6
17
18

relevant parts "in order to bring your properties into compliance, the following must be completed: ... 2. Schedule a preapproval inspection prior to item no

3."

(January 19,

2012 "Motion to Dismiss Mark Nansen For Due Process Violations, Exhibit

1t.; In

t9
20

Short, the Stop Work Order requested an inspection of the property on March 23,

20II.

The Nansens' statements to the contrary was flatly contradicted by the letter that they

2l
22 23

included within this motion and the motion that was submitted on January 19,2012. In fact, the defense acknowledges that the City requested an inspection. (Defense's Motion, p. 6, lines 13-18.) However, the defense attempts to excuse the fact that the Nansens ignored the City's request by stating that "prosecutor Iamaar Boyd-Weatherby in a meeting on May 3, 2011 [said] that the Nansens would never get such permit anyway." Given the defense's recognition that the City requested an inspection, it is strange that the
' The March23,2011 letter was included in the Inspection Warrant application. As such, it was attached as an exhibit to the Defense's Penal Code section 1538.5.

24
25

26 27 28

-3OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SUPPRESS AND QUASH EVIDENCE

I
2
a

defense would submit a declaration stating under penalty of perjury that they were never asked for an inspection and claim that the "homeowners were never given notice so they

may consent or refuse the inspection." Defense's Motion, p. 4, lines 25-26. Nevertheless, the Nansens were provided notice of the City's request for an inspection. The Defense also asserts that the City made "false or misleading" statements when

4
5

6 7

Michael Do stated that "the property owners expressly denied the City's request for an inspection. Please refer to the Declaration of Marlon Ramirez." (Defense Exhibit l, p. 3,
lines 22-23). In order for the court to determine whether to grant an inspection warrant, the court must review the aff,rdavits submitted by the requesting agency. Civ. Proc.
$

I
9
10

1822.51 ("the affidavit shall contain either a statement that consent to inspect has been sought and refused or facts or circumstances reasonably justifying the failure to seek such

1l

t2
13

consent."); See also, People v. Camarella,54 Cal. 3d 592,600-601(1991) quoting lllinois v. Gates, 462U.5. at 238."[t]he task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a

t4
15

practical, commonsense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the

affidavit before him, including the'veracity' and'basis of knowledge'of persons

supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime

t6 t7

will

be found in a particular place."

l8
r9
20
21

Michael Do's statement is a part of an application; not an aff,rdavit. The only

affidavit that is included with the application was from Code Enforcement Officer Ramirez. (See, Defense Motion, Exhibit 1.) The statement that the defense is taking
issue with is a "non-sworn" statement that was made by an attorney in an attempt to

22
23

summarize the facts. As such, it cannot serve as the basis for issuing the warrant. See,

Civ. Pro. $ 1822.5

l; People v. Barajas, 145 CaL App.

3d 804, 809 (1983) (Arguments by

24
25

counsel does not serve as

evidence.) Code Enforcement Officer Ramirez (the actual

affiant) stated that "subsequent to and based upon what I had observed on March 17,
2011 wherein the City requested a scheduled inspection of the Property. .. The City gave

26 27
28

Property owners until April25,2011 to schedule the inspection. To this date, the -4OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SUPPRESS AND QUASH EVIDENCE

I
2
J

Property owners have not made any attempt whatsoever at allowing the City to inspect
the Property." (Defense Exhibit 1, M. Ramirez Dec. fl 9, lines 27-3.) Ramirez also stated

that "the property owners and their attorney have failed to contact the city prior to the
June 6,

4
5

20Il deadline that had been agreed upon during the May 3,2011 conference."
l, M.
Ramirez Dec. fl 12, lines

(Defense Exhibit

ll-12.) While it is unclear

what the

6 7 8

defense means that these statements do not pass "constitutional muster," the statements establish that the Nansens

willfully failed to respond to repeated request for

inspection.

Thus, the inspection warrant was in compliance with the Code of Civil Procedure section

9
10
11

1822.5r.

It must also be noted that Mr. Do's statement was accurate. As established by the
record, the Nansens were asked multiple times for an inspection of their property.
(Defense Exhibit 1, M. Ramirez Dec.
'1f

12
13

9, lines 27-3 and fl 12, lines

II-12.)

They never

granted or even responded to the repeated request. Their failure to respond to the request amounted to a refusal to allow the City to inspect the property.

t4
15

There Were No Fourth Amendment Violations

The defense also atternpts to argue that the City violated Nansens' Fourth Amendment Right against unlawful search and seizures by viewing their property from a neighbor's property. In order for the defense's argument to be true, it would first have to
be established that they have a reasonable expectation of privacy for buildings and structures that could be seen from a neighbor's property. However, they did not cite any

r6

t7
18 19

20

2l
22
23

authority to support this position. Further, the defense's position would be contrary to
established principles of law. Evidence obtained following a warrantless search is

admissible

if it was "fully

disclosed to the eye and hand of an officer who has a right to

24
25

bewherehe is.

..."

Peoplev. Claeys,97 Cal. App.4th 55,58 (2002) quoting Dillonv.

Superor Court, T Cal.3d 305, 310 (1972).

Code Enforcement Ramirez was allowed onto one of the defendant's neighbor's

26 27
28

property where he was able to see that the Nansens had built "a new pool, concrete deck -5OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SUPPRESS AND QUASH EVIDENCE

I
2 J

adjacent to the pool and a walkway leading to the pool that were built on a flat areathat the Property owners' had graded without a permit." (Defense Exhibit

l, M. Ramirez

Dec. !f 6, Lines 14-18.) The fact that the Code Enforcement Officer could witness the

4
5

violations from the neighbor's property established that the defendant did not have
"reasonable expectation of privacy." Dillion, T Cal.3d at
31

1.

Further, even

if it was

6 7
8

assumed that the City illegally gained entry onto the neighbor's property, the defendant does not have areasonable expectation of

privacy. Claeys,97 Cal. App.

4tn

at 59 (The

Court rejected the argument that a defendant's Fourth Amendment rights were violated

9 10
11

by observations made by off,rcers that illegally entered onto a neighbor's property.) Even

if it is assumed that the defense illegally entered the neighbor's property, the City did not
violate the Nansens' Fourth Amendment rights by making observations from
neighbor's property.
a

t2
13

Conclusion
For the aforementioned reasons, the defense's motion should be denied.

t4
15

I6 I7
18

DATED:

April 16,2012

Respectfully submitted,

d.
M. BOYD WEATHERBY Deputy City Prosecutor for South Pasadena

t9
20

2t
22
23

24
25

26 27
28

-6OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SUPPRESS AND QUASH EVIDENCE

PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 3777 North Harbor Boulevard, Fullerton,
California 92835.

PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE 1538.5,

Marvin L. Rudnick, Esq. Law Offices of Marvin L. Rudnick 42F. Colorado Blvd., 2nd Floor Pasadena, CA 91 105 PH: 626-796-7799 FAX: 626-196-2029 marvinrudnick@yahoo.som

opposTfioN-ro MorroN To SUP?RESS

On Aoul-!-20-lZ, I served the foregoing document described as

on each interested arty, as follows

AND QUASH EVIDENCE

,/

(VIA MAIL) I deposited such envelope, with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the mail
C al

at La Habr a,

ifornia.

(OVERNITE EXPRESS) I deposited such envelope in the depository at Fullerton, California to ensure next day delivery. I am readily familiar with the Law Offices of Jones & Mayer practice for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Under that ractice, it would b deposited with the United States Postal Service on that same day with ostage thereon fully prepaid atLa Habra, California, in the ordinary course of business. I am ware that on motion of the parties served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing affidavit.

_(VIA /

PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused to be delivered such envelope by hand to the offices of the addressees.

(VIA FACSIMILE) I caused the within documents to be transmitted to telephonic

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the

facsimile to the addressees.

foregoing is true and conect. Executed on April 16. 2012 , at Fullerton, California.
r'

MAzuLYN TALLEFF

2
J
a

Marvin L. Rudnick (Bar No.: 141648) LAW OFFICES MARVIN L. RUDNICK 42EasT. Colorado Blvd., Second Floor Pasadena, Califomia 9 1 1 05 Telephone: (626) 796-77 99 Facsimile: (626) 7 9 6-2029
Attor-ney for

4
5

MARK NANSEN A,iD ROBERTA NANSEN

6
1
8

SUPERIOR COTIRT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COTINTY OF LOS ANGELES

9 10
11

NORTI{EAST JUDICIAL DISTzuCT

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiil"

VS

CASE NO. lWA11810

)
)

t2
13

) ) )

14
15

t6
11 18

MARK NANSEN; ROBBRTA NANSEN

Defendants

i9
20

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

REPLY BRIEF TO CITY'S OPPOSITION TO DDFENDANTS' PC $ 1538.5 MOTION; REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE; DECLARATION OF MARVIN L. RUDNICK
(PC S 1538.5, 1539 &.1s40)

Date:

J|;fay

15, 2012

Time:

8:30 AM
4

Dept.
HON.

2I
22 23
a

Jared Moses

REPLY BRIEI
F'AI,SE STATEIVIENTS MADE BY CITY PECTIOR TO SECIIRE WARRANT MUST

L+ 25 26 21 28

SUPPRESS WARRANT OR OTHERWISE CONVENE EVIDENTIARY HEARING

Nothing in the City Attorney's Opposition contradicts that City Inspector Marlon Ramirez
submitted a false affidavit and a key rnaterial misrepresentation to Judge Uranga when he said the
Iepiy to Opposition to Motion to
Sr,rppress per
1

pc $ 1538.5 (Nansens)

Defendants, residents at2145 Hanscom Drive, South Pasadena expressly denied access to their
I
2
J

home. Moreover, no declaration accompanied City's Opposition to refute Defendants' contention.

Clearly, the City's use of a false affidavit claiming that the Defendant Nansens expressly denied
access to their properly is so egregious that nothing

4
J
a

left in the warrant can justify its enforcement.

The U.S. Supreme Court has specifically prohibited such searches. Cantcu"a v. lvltmicipnl

6 7

Court,387 U.S. 523,549 (1967).("(S)uch warants should nonnally be sor"rght only aftel entry is
refused."

See

generally, Levenson, California Criminal Procedure, $ 5:55, p. 300, f.n.

5.

Rather

than admitting to the perjurious statement, the City's Opposition seeks to cover it up through the use

t0
11

of an obscure reference in an earlier City Stop Work Order r.vhich they say placed the burden on the
Defepdants to "schedule a preapproval inspection" as part of their compliance.. This does uot negate that IVI. Ramirez' lied to get the warrant from Judge Uranga. As such, Defendants contend that they made a substantial showing as provided tn Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) that

r2
13

l4
15

would permit the courl to commence an evidentiary hearing to detennine whether there is a
preponderance of evidence that the City submitted false or reckless statements to Judge lJranga

16

t7
18

justifying their excision from the Wananl. People

Franks.)

v. Braclfurd (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1229, 1297

, crfrng

i9
20

Finally, City attempts to distinguish between Inspector Ramirez' (false) declaration and City Attomey Do's misrepresentation in his Application that "(T)he Property owners have expressly
denied the City's request for an inspection. Please refer to Declaration of Marlon Ramirez") Appl.

2\
22

p. 3:22-23. But where the City specifically referred to a declaration that did not contain the very
23

)4
25

iformation needed to obtain the warrant, City prosecutors must be held accountable for this
constitntional breach

or should have read Mr. Ramirez' declaration before presenting it to

a

Jr,rdge

26
27 28

Uranga. Now, for the City to excuse this misconduct under the guise of

buried pluase in a self-

serving stop work order, that itself, was issued by Inspector Ramirez, is shameful.
Reply to Opposition to Motion to Suppress per pc $ 1538.5 (Nansens) 2

if lnspector

to secnre Ramirez kner,v he was relying upon that buried phrase, he should have said it his afhdavit
1

2
J

the warrant, not argue it now to save tt.

REOUEST FOR CONTINU ANCE OF SUPPRESSION HEARING

4
5

TOS

EMENT M

ON TO

SS

Finally, in the past two weeks Defendants have received new and exculpatory evidence
counsel fi.om their March Ig,2012 Public records Request. On September 13, 2011 Defendants' served a pC
$

6 1
B

1054 reqr.rest for discovery upon City of South Pasadena prosecutors. In that reqllest,

on page 2,line 12, emails were sought that were in the care, custody and controi of the City,
9
10
11

incltrdingitsprosecutors,underthedefinitionof"Document";and onpage6,linelT, "exculpatory

the evidence" was requested of police and zoning officials regarding the City's case against
Nansens. From that
$

l2
13

1054 request, and only after a meet and confer, the City provided two e-mails

one of which was that

of

the Defendants' counsel'

t4
15

On March Ig,2012, independently from this case, the Nansens filed a Public Records after the Nansens request to the South pasadena City Clerk which beginning in micl-Aprrl,2012,

16

I7
18 19

more,. Some frled their Motion to Suppress, the City Clerk, not the City prosecutor provided dozens
residence, of the e-mails are exculpatory or otherwise related to the City's inspection of the Nansen

Clearly and evidence that is highly relevant and material to the instant Motion to Suppress.
numerous e-tnails contrary to their obligations under Bracly and PC S 1054, City Attorney held bacl<

20

2I
22
/-J

"Inspections (See Exhib it,,Z,,). As is shown in Exhibit "2", some of these e-mails are entitled

Drive", without permission", "Complaint from Roberta Nansen"; "Nansen" and"2145 Hanscom
searches on the Nansen and clearly relevant to the Nansen defense. Other e-mails admit illegal

24
25

for the properly which is relevant to the instant motion to suppress to show that the probabie cause e-rnails exhibit instant search is evidence of the fruit of the poisonons tree. Combined the withheld
a

26
27
2B

that was cultule of constitutional abuse by the City of South Pasadena building permit department
Reply to Opposition to Motion to Suppress per pc $ 1538 5 (Nansens)
a -)

"3", the given police powers beyond any justification or proper authority. And as seen in Exhibit
1

2
3

very affiant used by City prosecutors to secure the warrant from Judge Uranga, that is, lnspector to the case Ramirez, was permitted by City Prosecutors to review hundreds of e-mails related in without disclosing these emails to Defendants though routine discover:y methods. For example,
tlre e-mail of

4
5

April lI , 2012 at 7:16 AM, the City clerk states that the city Attorney,

the prosecutor

6
7
B

i'

this case

,,did review materials last Tuesday did OK some." Defendants demand that these

the instant emails be turned over in discovery immediately so counsel can review them regarcling
the motion and for preparation for trial. Because City prosecutors withheld this evidence from

10
11

for use in Defendants, it is requested that a45 d.ay continuance be granted to evaluate these e-mails
the instant and any potential new motions. See Declaration of Marvin L. Rudnick.

l2
13

DATED: May 1 ,2012

LAW OFFICES OF MARVIN L. I{UDNICK

t4
1< LJ

T6

By:

MARVIN L. RUDNICK
Attorney for Defendants MARI( NANSEN and ROBERTA NANSEN

l7
18

19

20

2l
22
23
a,4 L+

25

26
21

28 Reply to Opposition to Motion to

Sr-rppress per

pc $ 1538 5 (Nansens)

CLARATION
I
2
J
1

MARVIN L. IUDI\I

I, Marvin L. Rudnick, hereby declare as follows:

I am over the age of

18 and have personai lcnowledge as to all facts set forth helein alrd

if

called as a witness to testify thereto I could and would competently do so.

5

2. I am the attorney for Defendant

MARK

and ROBERTA

NANSEN in Case #14HO3330.

l
8

The Declaration is brought to secure a continuance of 30 days to evaluate new evidence received

from the City of South Pasadena..

9 10
11

3. Except as otherwise stated, this declaration

is based on my personal knowledge and

if

called upon as a witness I could and wor,rld competently testify to the matters contained herein.

4. On September 13, 2011 I served a PC $ 1054 (See a true and cotrect copy of said Request
12
13

as

Exhibit
page

"1")

request for discovery upon City of South Pasadena prosecutors. In that request, on

t4
15

2,line 12,I requested any emails in possession of the City under the definition of "Doctunent";
17

and on page 6, \ne

,I

asked for all "exculpatory evidence" in possession by the prosecutor or'

16

zoningofficials regarding the case against the Nansens'

t]
18 19

5. From that $1054 request, City attomey plovided two e-mails,

one of r,vhich was tnine.

However, in discovery provided to the Nansens by the City Clerk commencing on April 70,2012,
there was included nurnerous e-rnails including true and correct copies received fi-om my Clients

20

2I
22
23

which are attached as Exhibit

"2".

Some of these are entitled "Lrspections without Permission",

,,Complaint frorn Roberta Nansen; :Nansen" and "2145 Hanscom

searches on the Nansen property

Drive".

Some admit illegal

which is relevant to the instant motion to suppress.

are

24
25 26

6. Attacirecl as Exhibit

"3"

true and correct copies of emails sent to rne by my Client from

the South pasadena City Clerk who said that lnspector Ramirez is reviewing hundreds of e-mails related to the case. In the e-mail of

2l
2B

April Il,2012

at

:16

AM, City Clerk

states that the

City

Attomey, the prosecutor in this case "did revier,v materials iast Tr-resday dicl OI( sorre."
Reply to Opposrtion to Motion to
S_uppress

pel pc $ 1538.5 (Nansens)

I declare under penaity of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
I
2
J

is true and correct. Executed at Pasadena, califomia on NIay I,2012.

4
5

Marvin L. Ruclnicl< Attomey for Defendants lv{ARI( and ROBERT^ NANISEN

6 7
8

9 10
11

t2
13

T4
15

16 11 18 19

20
2T

22
23

24
25

26 27
28 Reply to Opposition to Motion to Suppress per pc $ 1538 5 (Nansens) 6