People v. Greenstreet

California Court of Appeal Mar 13, 1990 No. E006600Published

Before: Hollenhorst

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a search warrant affidavit edited to protect a confidential informant's identity does not need to independently establish probable cause, provided the original, unedited affidavit contains sufficient probable cause.

Issues

Whether an edited search warrant affidavit must independently contain sufficient probable cause to support the warrant.
Whether the trial court erred in dismissing an information when the original affidavit established probable cause but the redacted version did not.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The trial court stated that it had reviewed the original affidavit and the edited version and had concluded that there was probable cause if the original affidavit was considered but there was not probable cause if the edited version was considered.”

“We find no support in logic or law for defendant’s argument. Acceptance of defendant’s position would effectively eliminate reliance on an informant’s confidential information for search warrant affidavits”

“Since the trial court found that the original affidavit contained sufficient information to constitute probable cause, the trial court erred in dismissing the information.”

Opinion

HOLLENHORST, Acting P. J.

The trial court found that a search warrant affidavit that was edited to delete information about a confidential informant contained insufficient probable cause for the issuance of the warrant. The trial court therefore dismissed the information, even though it also found that the unedited affidavit contained sufficient probable cause. The People appeal, contending that the trial court erred. We agree and reverse the trial court.

Background

An informant advised police that defendant was selling methamphetamine from a business location in San Bernardino. The officer surveilled the location and proceeded to request a search warrant by a telephonic affidavit. The warrant was issued by the magistrate and served on the business. Quantities of methamphetamine and weapons were found and defendant was arrested on April 30, 1987. An information was filed charging defend

[1518]

ant with possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378) and various weapons charges.

At the original preliminary hearing, held July 13, 1987, defendant was held to answer to the charges. Subsequently, he filed a Penal Code section 995 motion in superior court contending that the magistrate violated his due process rights in sealing the entire search warrant affidavit. The court agreed and dismissed the information.

The People refiled the charges on April 6, 1988, and a second preliminary hearing was held on August 2, 1988. At that time, the court announced that it had deleted portions of the search warrant affidavit that would identify the confidential informant, and the balance of the affidavit would be furnished to defendant. The edited affidavit was then prepared and given to defendant. On August 11, 1988, the issue was submitted on the transcript of the first preliminary hearing, and defendant was held to answer.

Defendant then filed a second Penal Code section 995 motion to set aside the information. The motion, which included a request for the return of the seized property under Penal Code section 1538.5, was heard on February 22, 1989. At that time, the trial court stated that it had reviewed the original affidavit and the edited version and had concluded that there was probable cause if the original affidavit was considered but there was not probable cause if the edited version was considered. Since the People refused to give defendant the original affidavit, the trial court dismissed the charges. The People appeal. (Pen. Code, § 1238, subds. (a)(1) and (a)(8).)

People v. Greenstreet

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief