People v. Garcia CA3

Filed 10/15/13 P. v. Garcia CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Siskiyou) ----

THE PEOPLE, C072028

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. MCYKCRBF1200061) v.

JUAN JOSE GARCIA,

Defendant and Appellant.

Following the trial court’s denial of his motions to traverse and quash the search warrant in this case, defendant Juan Jose Garcia pled no contest to possessing methamphetamine for sale and possessing over one kilogram of heroin for sale. On appeal from the resulting six-year prison sentence, defendant contends the trial court erred in allowing a portion of the search warrant affidavit to remain sealed and in denying his motions to traverse and quash the search warrant. Disagreeing, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In January 2012, a magistrate signed a warrant authorizing the search of defendant’s house and surrounding grounds for drugs. The magistrate also ordered part

1

of the search warrant affidavit sealed to protect the identity of one or more confidential informants. Police then searched the house and grounds and found over 500 grams of methamphetamine and over 2,000 grams of heroin. Before pleading guilty, defendant brought motions, following the procedure set forth in People v. Hobbs (1994) 7 Cal.4th 948 (Hobbs), to have the trial court conduct an in camera review of the sealed material to determine whether the sealing was proper and to traverse and quash the warrant. The trial court did so and (1) found that the affidavit was properly sealed, (2) denied the motion to traverse the warrant because “there is . . . no false statement . . . that was in any way related to the finding of probable cause by the magistrate,” and (3) denied the motion to quash the warrant because “that which was stated in all of the documents before the magistrate . . . including the sealed portion, w[as] sufficient under the totality of circumstances . . . to support the issuance of the warrant.” DISCUSSION Under Hobbs, “[o]n a properly noticed motion by the defense seeking to quash or traverse [a] search warrant” where any portion or all of the search warrant affidavit has been sealed, “the lower court should conduct an in camera hearing . . . . It must first be determined whether sufficient grounds exist for maintaining the confidentiality of the informant’s identity. It should then be determined whether the entirety of the affidavit or any major portion thereof is properly sealed, i.e., whether the extent of the sealing is necessary to avoid revealing the informant’s identity.” (Hobbs, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 972.) “If the affidavit is found to have been properly sealed, and the defendant has moved to traverse the warrant, the court should then proceed to determine whether the defendant’s general allegations of material misrepresentations or omissions are supported by the public and sealed portions of the search warrant affidavit . . . . Generally, in order to prevail on such a challenge, the defendant must demonstrate that (1) the affidavit