Photo: San Francisco Chronicle

The sudden death of San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi in February jolted the city and its criminal justice system. As one of the only elected public defenders in the nation, Adachi had expanded the traditional role of the office, fighting for legal reform, pushing for police accountability and fiercely promoting civil rights — particularly for the poor and people of color.

Three months later, it is the leak of a police report on Adachi’s death — and the city’s response to that leak — that is stirring controversy and roiling San Francisco politics.

The police raid May 10 on journalist Bryan Carmody’s home as part of an investigation into who on the police force leaked the report has raised questions about due process and whether city officials violated laws protecting freedom of the press.

Here’s what we know so far about the developing saga:

Photo: Michael Macor / The Chronicle 2015

Who was Jeff Adachi? Adachi, who was 59 when he died, was a fierce advocate and courtroom lawyer for clients, a police watchdog, a filmmaker and firebrand politician. For 17 years he served as public defender, transforming the office into a fearsome outfit with skilled attorneys that rivals many private firms.

Raised in Sacramento, he graduated from UC Hastings College of the Law in 1985 before joining the public defender’s office the next year. He went on to stand at the center of many of the biggest stories in San Francisco.

His biggest fights included the legal saga of John Tennison, a man convicted of murder and sentenced to 25 years to life for a 1989 street-corner killing but who was later freed on appeal. He later went to work as a clerk in the public defender’s office.

In 2010 Adachi pushed Proposition B, a pension reform effort that would have forced police, firefighters and other city employees to contribute more money to their pensions and health insurance costs to save the city an estimated $170 million annually.

He exposed the “textgate” scandal at the SFPD, which revealed that six officers had exchanged dozens of racist and homophobic text messages.

His office won an acquittal for Jose Inez Garcia Zarate in the Pier 14 killing of Kate Steinle. Garcia Zarate was in the country illegally and had been previously deported five times. The case drew national attention when then-presidential candidate Donald Trump used it to advocate for stricter immigration policy.

And Adachi pushed to punish police in officer-involved shootings like the killing of Mario Woods, who was shot by five officers in the Bayview in 2015 after allegedly stabbing a man. Even as head of his office, he continued to personally take cases and won an acquittal for a client in a murder trial just two months before he died.

Photo: Gabrielle Lurie / The Chronicle

How did Adachi die? Paramedics were called to an apartment at 46 Telegraph Place at 5:45 p.m. on Feb. 22 and found Adachi unconscious. They rushed him to a hospital, where he was pronounced dead an hour later.

Adachi had left home that morning around 6 a.m., his wife told investigators. The city medical examiner’s office learned Adachi had been with a woman named Catalina who told police she had spent the day with Adachi, starting with breakfast at 11 a.m.

The two went to a restaurant in North Beach for dinner around 4 p.m. and “drank a glass or two of Champagne,” according to the medical examiner. While eating, Adachi began complaining of abdominal pain and was sweating profusely, officials said.

The two headed to the Telegraph Hill apartment, which a friend, Susan Kurtz, had let Adachi use. Once there, he continued to feel ill, collapsed and became unresponsive, the medical examiner said.

The medical examiner ruled the death accidental. A toxicology report found alcohol, cocaine and a drug typically used for anxiety relief in his system — substances the medical examiner said caused his death along with heart disease.

Photo: Paul Chinn / The Chronicle

How did the police report first surface? A day after Adachi’s death, reporters began to learn some of the circumstances — including the location and that Adachi had been with a woman who was not his wife when he died.

KGO-TV, KNTV, KTVU, The Chronicle and the Examiner soon began reporting details of Adachi’s death from a preliminary police report that included a two-page summary of the incident along with 22 photos. None of the television stations revealed how they obtained the police report, but it was later learned three stations bought it from Carmody, an independent “stringer” who typically gathers video of breaking news stories for stations.

The Chronicle obtained the report, without payment, from a confidential source who was not Carmody.

Days later, KPIX-TV sent a letter to the Police Department and the city attorney’s office seeking a copy of the report after other stations had published their stories, according to a copy of the letter obtained by The Chronicle.

An attorney with the public defender’s office said he spoke to a reporter for KRON-TV outside the apartment where Adachi died. The reporter, he said, told him that the police report related to Adachi’s death had been offered for sale to news outlets by a stringer.

Photo: Paul Chinn / The Chronicle

What was the initial reaction from City Hall? City officials, including Mayor London Breed, members of the Board of Supervisors, and attorneys in the public defender’s office expressed outrage over the leak. Many believed releasing the report was an attempt by police officers who disliked Adachi to smear him and tarnish his legacy.

San Francisco Supervisor Sandra Fewer called a special hearing in April castigating the Police Department over the leak. Police officials apologized to Adachi’s family and promised they were investigating the matter both administratively and criminally.

At the hearing, Deputy Public Defender Hadi Razzaq told supervisors about the stringer reportedly offering to sell copies of the report to news outlets for $2,500 apiece. Carmody would not say how much he sold the report for, but said it was significantly less than $2,500.

Photo: Courtesy Bryan Carmody

How did the ensuing raid go down? Nearly a month later, on May 10, police officers arrived at Carmody’s home in the Outer Richmond District with a search warrant and a sledgehammer. He said police had been there the month before asking him to identify the confidential source who provided him the report. Carmody refused to give up the name.

During the search, police handcuffed Carmody and searched his home. The officers discovered he had an office in the Western Addition and obtained a second search warrant for that location.

Two Superior Court judges, Victor Hwang and Gail Dekreon, signed the warrants. Police Chief Bill Scott said he was “confident we took the appropriate legal matters to get the search authorized.” The judges have not commented.

In California, journalists are protected from being searched and from being compelled to reveal sources under the state’s shield law.

Nonetheless, police seized 68 items, including computers, phones and hard drives, while “investigating a potential case of obstruction of justice along with the illegal distribution of a confidential police report,” a department spokesman said.

Scott justified the search, saying, “We have to do our jobs and make sure reports are not released when they are not supposed to be released. If there’s criminal activity that’s proven, we want to get to the bottom of that.”

Photo: Paul Kuroda / Special To The Chronicle

How do police get search warrants? A search warrant is an order signed by a judge that allows law enforcement to search a person or his property, like a home, car or boat. Police must show probable cause, or reasonable suspicion of a crime, in a signed affidavit, and describe what they’re looking for.

Under California law, police can search for stolen property, items that were used in a felony and items that are evidence of a felony. They can also search for items a person intends to use later in a crime, or criminal property that a person gives to another person to conceal.

Judges are barred from issuing warrants for items protected by the California shield law for journalists.

Police officials will occasionally consult with a prosecuting agency before applying for a search warrant. San Francisco police said they did not consult the district attorney’s office before applying for the warrants to search Carmody’s property.

Police filed the warrants for Carmody’s property under seal, so it is unclear whether they disclosed that he is a journalist.

Photo: Michael Macor / The Chronicle 2017

What was the response to the raid? Free-press advocates, including the First Amendment Coalition, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and the Society of Professional Journalists, have condemned the raid on Carmody’s home and office.

The San Francisco Press Club sent a letter to the district attorney’s office and the state Department of Justice urging “a full investigation.” And the First Amendment Coalition and other groups filed a motion to unseal the search warrants.

But while the search generated controversy over freedom of the press, many officials in San Francisco were largely ambivalent or at times supportive of the raid — at least at first.

How have city leaders responded? Here are their reactions, in their own words:

Police Chief Bill Scott: At a May 15 Police Commission meeting, Scott stood by the raid, saying, “This leak was a breach of the public trust and I understand that and we’re investigating that leak fully, including allegations of misconduct, potentially by members of the San Francisco Police Department.” He added, “We have to do our jobs and make sure reports are not released when they are not supposed to be released.”

Mayor London Breed: Breed has not directly condemned the raid. On May 14, she released a statement saying police “went through the appropriate legal process to request a search warrant, which was approved by two judges. I believe that someone from within the Department needs to be held accountable for the release of this information, and the Police need to continue that internal investigation using legal and appropriate means.” On May 19, Breed changed her stance somewhat, writing on Twitter: “I want the SFPD to get to the bottom of this, but I am not okay with police raids on reporters. We need to do better. However, two judges issued the search warrant, and I have to believe that the judges’ decision was legal and warranted, and therefore so was the search. Whether or not the search was legal, warranted and appropriate, however, is another question. And the more we learn, the less appropriate it looks to me.” She said the city needs “a protocol going forward for how to handle investigations that involve members of the media” and added that “we have to work harder to honor not only the letter of California’s Shield Law, but also the spirit of it.”

District Attorney George Gascón: After returning from an overseas trip, Gascón criticized the raid Monday, writing, “My office has not seen the warrant or the facts upon which it was based, but absent a showing that a journalist broke the law to obtain the information that police are looking for, I can’t imagine a situation in which a search warrant would be appropriate.”

Public Defender Mano Raju: On the day of the raid, Raju released a statement saying, “All of our criminal justice and City Hall leaders agree that the release of police reports in this fashion is wrong. I am pleased that Chief Scott and others is keeping their word and working to get to the bottom of it.” The office later released a longer statement on its website that read in part, “Our office is not privy to the justification for (the Police Department’s) actions nor are we fully aware of how the search warrant was executed. The Office of the Public Defender does not condone or support excessive police actions ever.”

Supervisor Sandra Fewer: Fewer told The San Francisco Examiner last week, “I think (Carmody) was getting this information to make a profit from it,” before adding, incorrectly, that “if he were obtaining this information to write a story, it still is illegal to obtain a police report unless it has been officially released.” The next day, Fewer released a longer statement, which read in part, “The truth is, I am not a legal expert. Given the current political climate at the national level, I understand that freedom of the press is a sensitive issue and why there were concerns about my statement. I do have strong feelings about the morality of Carmody’s actions, including the sale of a leaked police report that was meant to damage the reputation of Jeff Adachi after his death.”

California Shield Law, Evidence Code Section 1070 (a) A publisher, editor, reporter, or other person connected with or employed upon a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, or by a press association or wire service, or any person who has been so connected or employed, cannot be adjudged in contempt by a judicial, legislative, administrative body, or any other body having the power to issue subpoenas, for refusing to disclose, in any proceeding as defined in Section 901, the source of any information procured while so connected or employed for publication in a newspaper, magazine or other periodical publication, or for refusing to disclose any unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or processing of information for communication to the public. (b) Nor can a radio or television news reporter or other person connected with or employed by a radio or television station, or any person who has been so connected or employed, be so adjudged in contempt for refusing to disclose the source of any information procured while so connected or employed for news or news commentary purposes on radio or television, or for refusing to disclose any unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or processing of information for communication to the public. (c) As used in this section, “unpublished information” includes information not disseminated to the public by the person from whom disclosure is sought, whether or not related information has been disseminated and includes, but is not limited to, all notes, outtakes, photographs, tapes or other data of whatever sort not itself disseminated to the public through a medium of communication, whether or not published information based upon or related to such material has been disseminated. 1524(g) of the California Penal Code states that “No warrant shall issue for any item or items described in Section 1070 of the Evidence Code.”

Supervisor Hillary Ronen: In a May 14 interview with The Chronicle, Ronen called the raid “bizarre” and said she was “very concerned by the actions of the Police Department.” She said, “I’ve been very vocal how disgusted I was of someone’s conduct in the Police Department and wanted it investigated, but that didn’t mean targeting a journalist. ... If we force any journalist to give up sources then we are weakening the free press.”

Supervisor Aaron Peskin: Peskin released a statement May 15 slamming police and the judges who approved the raid: “A free press is a fundamental pillar of our democracy and must be protected. The fact that the Superior Court nevertheless signed warrants authorizing police to conduct the raid on a journalist’s home and to confiscate their belongings boggles my mind.”

Supervisor Matt Haney: On Sunday, Haney called on the city’s Department of Police Accountability to investigate the raid. “The awful politically motivated leaking of the police report came from inside SFPD. That’s where this investigation should focus — internally,” he wrote on Twitter. “Knocking down the door of a journalist with a sledgehammer and seizing property is an unacceptable direct attack on freedom of the press. ... It is critical that San Francisco uphold the standards and principles that Jeff Adachi modeled throughout his life.”

Supervisor Vallie Brown: On Sunday, Brown Tweeted: “It isn’t right for police to knock down a journalist’s door with a sledgehammer. It’s against the freedom of the press and the wrong way for an investigation to happen.”

Supervisor Catherine Stefani: Stefani wrote Sunday, “Freedom of the press is under attack in San Francisco. Journalists deserve every protection guaranteed to them under California’s Shield Law and the First Amendment. These protections apply not just to journalists at elite organizations, but to all journalists. We must do better than this.”

Supervisors Gordon Mar, Ahsha Safaí, Shamann Walton and Rafael Mandelman and board President Norman Yee: As of Monday, they had not responded to messages.

Photo: Santiago Mejia / Special To The Chronicle 2016

What is the California shield law? The state shield law gives protections to journalists that ordinary citizens lack: the right to refuse to disclose the source of information and to withhold information they have obtained but have not published or submitted for publication.

State code bars police from searching journalists in an effort to get around the shield law. Officers must instead get a subpoena to summon the journalist to court, where a judge can decide if the information is protected.

Photo: Tim Maloney, The Chronicle

What’s next for Carmody and his attorney? Carmody’s attorney, Thomas Burke, filed a motion seeking to quash the search warrants and force police to return his property.

Burke, who has represented The Chronicle and its parent company, Hearst Corp., in other cases, argued the warrants were invalid, saying police and judges violated state and federal laws, including Carmody’s right to due process, as well as California’s shield law.

He said officers “carried out an egregiously overbroad and intrusive search, violently breaking into Mr. Carmody’s home, threatening him with drawn guns, and seizing dozens of communications devices after rummaging through his residence and home for hours while he sat in handcuffs despite posing no conceivable threat.”

San Francisco Superior Court Judge Samuel Feng is scheduled to hear the motion Tuesday at the Hall of Justice.

Evan Sernoffsky is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: esernoffsky@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @EvanSernoffsky