In People v. Superior Court (George) (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 350, the trial court denied the defendant's motion to represent himself on the ground that he is a security risk and sought self-representation only to acquire jail privileges. (Id. at p. 353.) The People petitioned for a writ of mandate, arguing the denial was not supported by applicable law and could trigger a second trial if a reviewing court later concluded the trial court committed Faretta error. (Id. at p. 352.) The Court granted the petition and ordered the trial court to conduct a hearing to provide the defendant an opportunity to waive his self-representation right with full knowledge of the probable custodial restrictions that will be imposed based on his security risk. (Id. at p. 354.) The Court reasoned the court "improperly created a criterion of 'extreme dangerousness' to deny the defendant his absolute right of self-representation. . . . There is simply no authority to deny a defendant the right of self-representation because the defendant poses a real or perceived threat or harbors an ulterior motive." (Ibid.) The Court explained that although the court had discretion to place security restrictions to protect the safety of persons in the courtroom, physical restrictions on a defendant (if determined to be necessary) do not preclude self-representation. (Id. at p. 355.)