In Van Atta v. Scott (1980) 27 Cal.3d 424, the California Supreme Court held, " The sole issue at the OR hearing is whether the detainee will appear for subsequent court proceedings if released OR." (Italics added.) The court also specifically held that preventive detention is not a proper consideration at a pretrial OR hearing. ( Id., at p. 445.) Although the court recognized that the trial judge retains discretion in granting an OR release ( Id., at p. 452), the express holdings stated above mean that respondent court's discretion to impose conditions upon an OR release is limited to conditions which are reasonably related to and attempt to insure subsequent court appearances. The Court held: "The existence of individuals directly affected by the challenged governmental action -- here pretrial detainees -- has not been held to preclude a taxpayers' suit. Numerous decisions have affirmed a taxpayer's standing to sue despite the existence of potential plaintiffs who might also have had standing to challenge the subject actions or statutes. For example, in Blair v. Pitchess (1971), . . . this court permitted taxpayers to maintain an action challenging the claim and delivery statute even though aggrieved persons directly affected by its operation also had standing to sue."