IN RE: DANIEL W. (1996)

Because it appears from a review of the record herein that the constitutional issues on which this court granted review were not raised in the trial court (see, e.g., C.T. at p. 35 [conceding that the “ordinance as written is constitutional”] ), and in view of Michigan v. DeFillippo (1979) 443 U.S. 31, 38, 99 S.Ct. 2627, 2632, 61 L.Ed.2d 343;  Illinois v. Krull (1987) 480 U.S. 340, 349, 107 S.Ct. 1160, 1166, 94 L.Ed.2d 364;  and In re Hector R. (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 1146, 1152, 200 Cal.Rptr. 110 (“An arrest made in good faith reliance on an ordinance [even though] subsequently declared to be unconstitutional is made with probable cause and is valid”), review in the above-captioned matter is dismissed pursuant to rule 29.4(c), California Rules of Court, and the cause is remanded to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District.

The request for an order directing publication of the opinion is denied.

LUCAS, C.J., and MOSK, KENNARD, ARABIAN, BAXTER and GEORGE, JJ., concur.