The Supreme Court holds that a trial court must generally grant a continuance of a suppression motion within the speedy trial period if it is reasonably foreseeable that denial of the continuance would require dismissal of the case, even if the continuance is not supported by good cause. The court agrees with the conclusion in People v. Ferrer (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 873 that denial of such a continuance constitutes an abuse of discretion, but critiques Ferrer‘s analysis of PC 1050 and 1050.5. The concurring/dissenting opinion questions the workability of the “reasonably foreseeable” standard.
^