Loading…
Standing Order #2023-01 (effective May 2, 2023): requests from law enforcement for destruction, disposition, or return of seized property - an application, supporting evidence (usually a sworn declaration) and a standalone proposed order with a line where the Criminal Presiding Judge can sign, captioned as the order prescribes (a request for a specific Superior Court case filed in that case), exhibits referencing the evidence with numbered lines and a list of the property attached to the proposed order; the code section or other legal authority for the disposition of each piece of property; declarations specific and complying with CCP § 2015.5, with a Superior Court case number for each item associated with an adjudicated case and, for items seized under a search warrant, the warrant number and a copy of the warrant; and the exact proposed disposition of each item, and to whom items will be returned.
California > Fifth Appellate District > Merced County > Superior Court of California, County of Merced
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MERCED 627 W. 21st Street Merced, CA 95340 STANDING ORDER #2023-01 EFFECTIVE MAY 2, 2023 REQUESTS FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT FOR DESTRUCTION, DISPOSITION, OR RETURN OF SEIZED PROPERTY The purpose of this standing order is to promote consistency in the requests for destruction or return of property by law enforcement. This standing order only applies to requests from a law enforcement agency to destroy, return, or otherwise dispose of property in its possession. These are usually blanket requests related to seized property being stored by law enforcement. Each request generally involves property related to a number of cases or incidents. The requests sometimes relate to property seized pursuant to a warrant where no case was filed. Note: If an agency is making a request for return of property related to a specific Superior Court case, the request is to be filed in that case, using the case number and caption. Procedural Requirements: • Each request must consist of an application, supporting evidence (usually in the form of a sworn declaration), and a proposed order. • The application, declaration, and proposed order should be captioned, “In re the [destruction, return, etc.] of [basic description of the evidence (i.e., controlled substances, property seized pursuant to warrant, etc.)] in the possession of [agency name],” UNLESS the request is specific to a case, then use the proper caption for that case, “People v. [defendant].” • The proposed order must be a standalone document and may not be combined with or be a continuation of any other document. • The proposed order must have a proper caption and a line where the Criminal Presiding Judge can sign. • If the declaration references any exhibits, those exhibits should be attached to the declaration. • Any attached exhibits referencing the evidence sought to be disposed of should have numbered lines. • Each proposed order must have attached to it a list of the property sought to be destroyed, returned, etc. This is the first order of 2023; the last standing order was 2022-08. Legal Requirements: • The application must provide the code section or other legal authority that supports the proposed disposition of each piece of property. It is not sufficient to provide a laundry list of statutes. • Each application must be supported by proper admissible evidence, usually in the form of a declaration. • Each declaration must state the reason for the request to destroy, return, or otherwise dispose of property in its possession. • Each declaration must be specific and must comply with CCP § 2015.5. • Each declaration must be specific enough that the Court can determine exactly which statutory authority applies to and supports the disposition of each item of property. • If the declaration provides that a case was adjudicated, there must be a Superior Court case number provided for each item of evidence allegedly associated with an adjudicated case. • If items were seized pursuant to a search warrant, the warrant number and a copy of the warrant must be included. • The exact proposed disposition of each item of evidence listed in a request must be provided. It is insufficient to state that the items will be destroyed, disposed of, or released. • If items of property are sought to be returned, the declaration must be specific as to whom the items will be returned. MARK V. BACCIARINI PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MERCED 627 W. 21st Street Merced, CA 95340 STANDING ORDER #2023-01 EFFECTIVE MAY 2, 2023 REQUESTS FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT FOR DESTRUCTION, DISPOSITION, OR RETURN OF SEIZED PROPERTY The purpose of this standing order is to promote consistency in the requests for destruction or return of property by law enforcement. This standing order only applies to requests fro
Reviewer note: Transcribed 2026-10-15 (California T4 Merced build 2026-10-15) by eye from BenchPath custody ca/t4/ca-merced/docs/general/standing-order-07072026.pdf (11638206 bytes, sha256 3a64db27e5391b6e9054feb5caef786433c02e5204366a95c135937e05e1630f; the compilation “ACTIVE STANDING ORDERS 2006 to Present”, linked as “All Current Standing Orders”; 70 pages - 36 covered by scanned page images (each with a machine reading laid with it - not a card's source), 34 born-digital (one font of the juvenile competency protocol's pages draws its characters shifted)); this order the compilation's pages 61 and 62, born-digital pages: read on the page images rendered at 200 dpi (vision/img/so-p61.png to so-p62.png), transcribed with the compilation's pages 61 to 70 and checked against a RapidOCR reading of the images (at 200 dpi) and the file's own text layer for the same pages, never published: of the transcription's 2678 words, 140 6-word windows were not found in a reading, in 26 spans - 19 spans split into consecutive pieces each found (a page break, a letterhead or signature block the readings interleave, or the readings' line order) and 7 spans read again on the page images and found as transcribed (vision/check-log.txt; evidence/vision-check-2026-10-15.log, evidence/vision-explain-2026-10-15.log). Not part of the text: the compilation's page stamps (“N of 70”) and, where printed, the court's seal, the letterhead's upper-right block, the signature, the running footers and the order's distribution list (cc:), never content (taken out by build/normalize_transcripts.py; the transcriber's file is kept in custody). The transcription's closing note, which describes the pages, is not published.
Standing order of the 109th Judicial District Court for every pending or later-filed case in Andrews, Winkler and Crane Counties: any attorney or self-represented litigant who uses any form of artificial intelligence for legal research or drafting in a case must, before using AI-generated information in a court submission or proceeding, sign and submit the court's certification form stating that all language, quotations, sources, citations, arguments and legal analysis created or contributed to by generative AI were verified as accurate by a human through traditional (non-AI) legal sources, and acknowledging responsibility and potential sanctions for their or their co-counsel's failure to comply. Effective immediately; in effect until rescinded or replaced.
Standing order of the 109th Judicial District Court for every pending or later-filed case in Andrews, Winkler and Crane Counties: any attorney or self-represented litigant who uses any form of artificial intelligence for legal research or drafting in a case must, before using AI-generated information in a court submission or proceeding, sign and submit the court's certification form stating that all language, quotations, sources, citations, arguments and legal analysis created or contributed to by generative AI were verified as accurate by a human through traditional (non-AI) legal sources, and acknowledging responsibility and potential sanctions for their or their co-counsel's failure to comply. Effective immediately; in effect until rescinded or replaced.