In People v. Baeske (1976) 58 Cal. App. 3d 775, the defendant committed a robbery. The victim reported the defendant fled in a vehicle with a license plate No. 468 ABC. ( Id. at p. 779.) Defendant was later arrested in a car with that license plate. At trial, the defendant sought to admit a police report which set forth the contents of a telephone call received by the police from a civilian-witness that the license plate number of the robber's car was not 468 ABC but instead was either 416 or 614. ( Id. at p. 780.) The trial court ruled the report was inadmissible hearsay. The appellate court upheld that finding. It reasoned: " 'Thus, a public employee's writing, which is based upon information obtained from persons who are not public employees, is generally excluded because the "sources of information" are not "such as to indicate its trustworthiness" . . . .' In the instant case, the civilian witness, the source of the information about the license plate, was not a public employee with any duty either to observe facts correctly or to report her observations accurately to the police department. The trial court was correct, therefore, in ruling that the proffered police report was inadmissible hearsay." ( Baeske, 28 Cal. App. 3d at pp. 780-781.) People v. Baeske, supra, 58 Cal. App. 3d at p. 775 considered and rejected an argument similar to that being made by plaintiffs that the evidence was being offered for a nonhearsay purpose. There, the defense argued the evidence was not being offered for the truth of the matter asserted (to show the license plate of the getaway car was not 468 ABC) but was offered merely to establish a report of another license plate had been made. The appellate court found that argument to be fallacious. It reasoned: "If offered for the nonhearsay purpose indicated, the evidence was inadmissible on the ground of irrelevancy. The evidence was obviously being offered by the defense to prove that the victim . . . was mistaken in his testimony as to the license number of the get-away car and that the license number of that car was one of the numbers contained in the police report as emanating from the civilian witness. The document was thus being proffered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter stated therein. Thus, the statement the civilian witness made to the police was hearsay and inadmissible unless it qualified under one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule." ( People v. Baeske, supra, 58 Cal. App. 3d at p. 780.)