Is a police report that alleges that Doreen used the victim's home as collateral for bail bonds admissible?

Defendant contends that the statements made in the police report were unreliable hearsay. However, the police report was admissible under the hearsay exception for official public records. (See Donley v. Davi (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 447, 461.) Evidence Code section 1280 provides: "Evidence of a writing made as a record of an act, condition, or event is not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule when offered in any civil or criminal proceeding to prove the act, condition, or event if all of the following applies: [] (a) The writing was made by and within the scope of duty of a public employee. [] (b) The writing was made at or near the time of the act, condition, or event. [] (c) The sources of information and method and time of preparation were such as to indicate its trustworthiness." Although there is no indication in the record as to exactly when Doreen used the victim's residence as collateral for the bail bonds, she did admit to doing so when the police interviewed her at the start of the investigation. Moreover, the police report was made within the scope of duty of the police detective, and there was no apparent reason to question its trustworthiness.