Search Warrants, generally
Category > Search Warrants, generally
Magistrate did not have the power to extend the authority of a peace officer from another county to the magistrate's county.A search warrant was issued by a magistrate in San Bernardino County and was directed to law enforcement officers in Los Angeles County. Los Angeles deputy sheriffs then executed the warrant in San Bernardino County. Absent an indication that the San Bernardino County sheriff had given consent to the search, the Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies did not have peace officer authority within the meaning of Penal Code sections 830.1 and 1528. The error did not require suppression of the evidence where the officers did not act in bad faith in seeking the warrant from the San Bernardino magistrate, the law was silent on the propriety of such an action, and probable cause supported the issuance of the warrant.id: 11054
Materials seized from consultants' offices should be reviewed in camera to determine whether they are covered by attorney-client or work product privileges.A search warrant was executed on the offices of an environmental consultant hired by defendant companies to assist in preparing to defend civil and criminal lawsuits. The issuance of the search warrant did not permit a search of materials protected by the attorney-client or work product privilege. An appropriate means of protecting the interests of the defendants and the prosecution is an in camera review of materials seized under the search warrant to determine whether the materials are covered by the attorney-client or work product privileges and therefore should not be disclosed to the government.id: 11055
Search warrant was invalid due to unsworn Statement of Probable Cause but evidence was admissible under the good faith exception.Because the Statement of Probable Cause which contained all the information relied on by the magistrate issuing the search warrant was unsworn and not signed by the affiant, it did not support the warrant. Nor did the affidavit support the warrant since it set forth only the officer's sworn belief in the existence of probable cause, a legal determination which is exclusively vested in the courts. However, the affidavit and Statement of Probable Cause were not so defective on their face that a well trained officer should have recognized the error and not sought the warrant. The evidence obtained from the search was therefore admissible under the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule.id: 10878
A search warrant is necessary to seize a dog that has exposed a person to rabies.Under Health and Safety Code section 1924 it is a misdemeanor to fail to produce on demand of a local health officer an animal that has bitten or otherwise exposed a person to rabies. However, the provision does not dispense with the Fourth Amendment requirement for obtaining a search warrant.id: 11049
Illegally obtained evidence may not form the basis for a search warrant.The prior illegal entry was disclosed to the magistrate. The illegal observations and information derived from them must be excised and the affidavit then retested for probable cause. If probable cause is still shown by the excised affidavit, then the prosecution must satisfy its burden of convincing a trial court that no information gained from the illegal entry affected either the law enforcement officer's decision to seek a warrant or the magistrate's decision to grant it.id: 11053
Telephone conversation illegally tape recorded by a private party could not be used in support of the search warrant.A third party who was not involved in appellant's criminal venture surreptitiously tape recorded telephone conversations with appellant and gave the tapes to the police. Appellant argued Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act precluded the use of the tapes to support the search warrant. The People argued The Act did not apply because the tapes were made by a private party and the police were involved in no wrong doing. However, the Act (18 U.S.C. 2510, et seq.) bars the use of <i>any</i> illegally intercepted wire communication, or <i>any</i> evidence derived therefrom. Therefore the recorded conversations could not be used to support the instant warrant. The Court of Appeal did not determine whether the good faith exception applied to the instant facts since the search warrant still provided probable cause to conduct the search, after redacting the tainted references to the taped confessions.id: 11060
The cell phone was properly seized, and text messages read, even though the phone was not among the items listed in the search warrant. Defendant argued the seizure of his cell phone was unauthorized because the search warrant did not specifically include cell phones in its list of property to be seized. However, the warrant allowed the seizure as the smartphone was the likely container of many items listed in the warrant. Moreover, the police were not required to get a second warrant to read defendant’s text messages.id: 22749
Warrant authorizing a search for dominion and control evidence allowed searching officers to read handwritten notes found on the floor following the shooting of four children in the house.Police searched defendant’s home pursuant to a warrant and ultimately read handwritten notes lying on the floor next to defendant’s bed. Defendant argued the warrant was overly broad if it justified the reading of these notes to establish defendant’s dominion and control of the house as the notes were not in envelopes but just the original writings lying on the floor. However, the language in the warrant that authorized a search for dominion and control evidence was sufficiently particularized and was justified by the fact that multiple murders had been committed in the house.id: 22544
Police did not exceed the scope of the warrant by confiscating an open laptop computer as "dominion and control" evidence.Defendant was convicted of receiving stolen property. She argued the police exceeded the scope of the search warrant when
they confiscated an open laptop computer under a warrant clause authoring seizure of "any items tending to show dominion and control" of the premises searched. However, a laptop computer
could logically serve as a container for information tending to show occupancy and control of the residence.id: 18983
The police did not exceed the scope of the warrant which permitted a search of the vehicle for certain items, by transporting the car to a crime lab for a search of trace or biological evidence.Police investigating a missing person obtained a warrant to search defendant's car seeking specific items belonging to the missing person. The police actions in searching the car and then transporting it to a crime lab to search for trace evidence
relating to those items did not exceed the scope of the search. The warrant's failure to specify that police were to search for trace evidence did not render the search invalid. Neither did the seizure of the vehicle violate the Fourth Amendment because it could not have been properly searched without being seized. Likewise, the 12 day delay in searching the car did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Finally, since probable cause existed to search the vehicle, the search was justified under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement.id: 19632
Suppression was not required where tip which led to the search warrant came from an attorney who learned the facts while representing clients.A lawyer told police her clients were committing a string of crimes and told them where to look for evidence. The lawyer learned this information through her representation of the clients. Quashing the search warrant and suppressing the evidence was not the appropriate remedy for the alleged breach of the attorney-client privilege. Moreover, where police use a confidential informant to obtain a warrant and defendant seeks to quash the warrant because he believes his lawyer was the informant and police procured a breach of the attorney-client privilege, an in camera review was the proper procedure to decide the motion.id: 18979
The oath signed on the face of the search warrant necessarily implies that the facts in the statement of probable cause are true.An officer signed an oath on the face of a search warrant. He swore that he had probable cause to believe the property described in the warrant could be legally seized and that his belief was based on the statement of probable cause found in the warrant. Defendant argued the warrant was defective as defendant did not swear the content of his statement of probable cause was true under penalty of perjury. However, the warrant was valid because the oath necessarily implies the facts in the statement of probable cause are true.id: 18807
Affidavit in support of a search warrant to test a defendant's blood for HIV may rely on hearsay.Penal Code section 1524.1, authorizes the court to issue a search warrant to test a criminal defendant's blood for HIV when certain sex offenses are charged. The warrant may be issued if, after considering supporting and rebutting affidavits and medical reports, the court finds probable cause to believe 1) the defendant committed the offense charged, 2) a body fluid capable of transmitting the virus has been transferred to the victim. Affiants may rely on hearsay in submitting an affidavit to obtain a section 1524.1 search warrant.id: 17104
Search was proper where there was a nexus between the items discovered and criminal activity, though not necessarily the criminal activity mentioned in the search warrant.he search warrant authorized the search of defendant's residence for evidence of racketeering activities and authorized the seizure of various documents. The search produced documents as well as drugs and firearms. The trial court erred by suppressing the seized items on the ground there was no nexus between them and the items mentioned in the search warrant. However, such a nexus is not required. Instead, the required nexus is that between the item discovered and a criminal activity, though not necessarily the criminal activity denominated in the warrant. The record did not suggest the officers searched areas unlikely to contain documents, or randomly seized items. Moreover, the items were properly seized under the plain view doctrine. Because the warrant authorized a search for documents, the officers searched the home, car and motorhome, and in doing so, looked in drawers, closets, shelves, and containers.id: 16721
Affiant need not be a sworn peace officer and the instant affiant was not misleading in describing herself as an investigative specialist.The affiant stated she was an investigative specialist with the district attorney's office. However, she was not a peace officer. Defendant argued the affiant's failure to reveal that she was not a peace officer was an intentional material omission which undercut the reliability of the affidavit and required suppression of the evidence seized. However, there is no reason why seeking a search warrant should be confined to peace officers instead of unsworn members of law enforcement such as a deputy district attorney or an unsworn investigator for a police department. Moreover, the affiant was not deliberately false or misleading in stating that she was an investigative specialist.id: 11050
Anticipatory warrant was not illegal where the purpose of the condition precedent was to corroborate the informant's information, and not to serve as the sole basis for issuance of the warrant.The search warrant affidavit specifically requested permission to search appellant's residence contingent upon the sale of marijuana and arrest of appellant. Appellant argued the search warrant was an illegal anticipatory warrant. However, probable cause to issue the search warrant was predicated on both the anticipated success of the reverse sting operation, <i>and </i>on the informant's detailed description of appellant's cultivation, harvesting, and selling of marijuana at his residence, the place to be searched. The purpose of the condition precedent was to corroborate the untested informant's information, not to serve as the sole basis for issuance of the warrant. The failure to state the contingency in the warrant or to incorporate the affidavit was harmless because the search was conducted in objectively reasonable good faith reliance upon the warrant.id: 11051
Death of the affiant did not render the search unreasonable nor did it infringe on defendant's right to confront and cross-examine witnesses.The person whose affidavit supported the issuance of the search warrant died before trial absent a showing that the statements in the affidavit were unreliable, the failure to conduct an evidentiary hearing violated neither defendant's Fourth Amendment rights nor his Sixth Amendment right to confront and cross-examine witnesses.id: 11052
Production of the abstract as opposed to the actual arrest warrant was sufficient proof of the arrest's validity to support the denial of the suppression motion.Appellant argued his suppression motion should have been granted because the prosecution failed to produce the arrest warrant and therefore could not justify the entry of his apartment. However, when the prosecution, as here, produces an abstract showing the existence of a facially valid warrant identifying the warrant with sufficient particularity to allow the defendant to obtain a copy of the warrant and its supporting documents, the prosecution has met its burden of producing evidence. Because appellant offered no evidence attacking the warrant's validity, the preponderance of evidence showed that the officer entered appellant's apartment pursuant to a valid arrest warrant. Thus, the court did not err in denying the suppression motion.id: 11056
Special master procedures of section 1524 do not apply to materials seized from the offices of environmental consultants.Defendant companies were being investigated for improper disposal of toxic substances at a local landfill. They hired environmental consultants to assist in preparing to defend civil and criminal lawsuits. They objected to the seizure pursuant to a warrant of materials from the work places of their consultants. They argued the seizure was improper because the special master provisions of Penal Code section 1524 were not employed. However, the special master procedures of section 1524 are limited to the offices of lawyers, doctors, psychotherapists and clergymen. They did not apply to the environmental consultants. Moreover, the materials found at the consultants' offices were not under the control of their attorney.id: 11057
Suppression of evidence was not required where the officer's failure to file the return to the search warrant was a good faith mistake.The search warrant was valid in its issuance and execution. However, defendant argued the police negligence in not filing the return timely compelled suppression of the evidence seized. He claimed prejudice in the loss of a potentially exculpatory trial witness. Evidence supported the trial court's finding that the officer's omission was a good faith mistake not a willful violation, and therefore suppression was not required. To the extent that some remedy appropriate to the loss of trial witnesses might have existed, defendant did not seek such remedy in the trial court and was precluded from doing so on appeal.id: 11058
The state of Washington warrant was valid despite a notation that the issuing state will only extradite to an adjacent state.The Washington warrant with the notation not to extradite from other than an adjoining stated does not invalidate an arrest in California. Moreover, assuming the warrant was invalid, the rule of <i>United States v. Leon</i>, (1984) 468 U.S. 897, that validates an arrest and search based upon a warrant executed by officers who had an objectively reasonable belief in its validity would apply.id: 11061
Trial court is not required to provide a section 1524, subdivision (c) hearing to a physician suspected of Medi-Cal fraud.A physician suspected of Medi-Cal fraud is not entitled as a matter of right to a Penal Code section 1524, subdivision (c) hearing to determine the applicability of the physician patient privilege to patient files seized from his office pursuant to a search warrant. The trial court has the inherent authority to determine the applicability of the physician-patient privilege, and also has the discretion to fashion an appropriate remedy to protect the interests and confidentiality of the Medi-Cal patients.id: 11062
About Pat Ford
Pat Ford is a criminal defense lawyer in San Diego who works on appeals in some of the most difficult cases around the state. He has a great record for success and integrity. Pat has also published a criminal case law digest since 1984 that's used by judges and lawyers around the state. He also speaks and writes articles for criminal lawyers as well as consumers interested in the law. The consumer-related articles are intended to be informative but do not constitute legal advice.
Case of the Day
The case of the day summarizes a current case and is viewed by lawyers and judges around the state every day.
Geofence search warrants were impermissibly overbroad and violated the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment but the good faith exception applied and suppression was not required.Defendants were identified as murder suspects after a geofence search warrant directed to Google revealed cell phones signed in to Google accounts connected to them were in several of the same locations as the victim on the day of the murder. The geofence warrants complied with the California Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 2016 (Cal ECPA) but they violated the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment and were impermissibly overbroad as the warrants placed no meaningful restrictions on the police search. However, suppression of the evidence was not required where the officers reasonably relied on the new geofence warrant in good faith.id: 27850