People v. Rochen

California Court of Appeal Aug 8, 1988 No. B027372Published

Before: Klein

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a search warrant affidavit provided sufficient probable cause because the officer's independent corroboration of the confidential informant's tip, including a monitored telephone call, established a substantial basis for the magistrate's decision. Furthermore, the omission of an unsuccessful reverse telephone directory check from the affidavit was not material because it would not have altered the probable cause determination.

Issues

Did the search warrant affidavit establish probable cause under the totality-of-the-circumstances test?
Was the officer's omission of an unsuccessful reverse telephone directory check from the affidavit a material omission?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Because the officer’s affidavit showed sufficient corroboration of the confidential informant to support the issuance of the search warrant, the judgment is affirmed.”

“The officer personally verified every facet of the information given him by the Cl except whether Nellie resided at the address in question.”

“While the detail regarding the reverse directory check would have been of interest, because the result of that quest was inconclusive, it was not material in the calculus of probable cause.”

Opinion

KLEIN, P. J.

Defendant and appellant Nell Marie Rochen (Rochen) appeals a judgment rendered upon a guilty plea after denial of her motion to suppress. (Pen. Code, § 1538.5.)

Because the officer’s affidavit showed sufficient corroboration of the confidential informant to support the issuance of the search warrant, the judgment is affirmed.

Factual and Procedural Background

The subject affidavit provided in relevant part: In early May 1986, the affiant was contacted by a confidential informant (Cl), who was a PCP user. The Cl knew a woman by the name of Nellie who was selling PCP from her

[687]

home. The Cl had purchased PCP from Nellie within the last few weeks. The Cl would phone Nellie in advance to determine whether she was at home before going over to purchase the PCP.

The Cl gave the affiant the telephone number which the Cl said belonged to Nellie’s residence. The affiant dialed the number in the Cl’s presence and monitored the call. A female answered the phone. The Cl asked: “Who’s this?” The female identified herself as Nellie. The Cl asked Nellie whether she had any PCP. Nellie said she did, and told the Cl to come over later. After the conversation, the Cl directed the affiant to a house which, according to the Cl, was Nellie’s residence.

A search warrant was issued and executed. The search of Rochen’s residence produced PCP and hypodermic needles.

Rochen’s motion to quash was denied. At the preliminary hearing, the officer testified, inter alia, prior to seeking the warrant, he checked the reverse telephone directory for the phone number and met with negative results. That detail was not included in the affidavit. Rochen was held to answer. In a two-count information, Rochen was charged with possession for sale of phencyclidine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378.5) (count I), and unauthorized possession of hypodermic needle or syringe (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 4149) (count II).

Rochen’s motion to quash the search warrant and suppress evidence (§ 1538.5) was denied. Rochen withdrew her not guilty plea to count I and pled guilty. Count II was dismissed. The midterm of four years was imposed, sentence was suspended, and probation was granted for a period of three years; one of the conditions was one hundred and eighty days in county jail.

People v. Rochen

AI Brief

KLEIN, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief