People v. McEwen

California Court of Appeal Aug 30, 1966 No. Crim. 11634Published

Before: Herndon

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the search warrant was valid because the "mere evidence" rule is not a constitutional standard in California, the items sought were instruments of crime, and the warrant described the items with sufficient particularity to avoid being a general warrant.

Issues

Whether a search warrant is invalid for authorizing the seizure of "mere evidence" of a crime.
Whether the search warrant was void for lack of particularity in describing the items to be seized.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We hold that the mere evidence rule is not a constitutional standard and has no application in California.”

“The test is whether the warrant places a meaningful restriction on the objects to be seized”

“We regard it as clear that the search warrant here involved properly described the “things to be seized.””

[535]

HERNDON, J.

This is an appeal hy the People from an order granting a motion made pursuant to Penal Code section 995 and setting aside an information which charged defendants with possession of marijuana in violation of section 11530 of the Health and Safety Code.

On March 30, 1965, there was filed in the Municipal Court of the Los Angeles Judicial District a lengthy, and unquestionably sufficient, affidavit in support of an application for the issuance of several search warrants. These warrants were sought during the culminating stage of a thorough investigation by officers of the Los Angeles Police Department into the allegedly extensive activities in this community of prostitutes, pimps and panderers—a complex of professions euphemistically referred to in modern terminology as ‘ ‘ call girl operations.” This investigation focused considerable attention upon the cooperative assistance being given to these operations by certain telephone answering services.

The warrant here involved was issued authorizing the search of an apartment located at 1837 North Kingsley Drive, Los Angeles, California. The following quotation from the warrant indicates the items of personal property which it directed the executing officer to seize and “bring forthwith” before the court: ‘ ‘ Trick books, personal address directories, utility bills, phone bills, rent receipts, telephone message slips, documents ef identity,- mechanical devices employed by prostitutes, aH le materials and other- related"

Under the authority of this warrant, police officers entered the described premises on April 1, 1965, and searched for the items specified therein. In the course of this search the officers found and seized two boxes on a closet shelf described as follows in the return: “One white shoe box containing green seeds resembling marijuana seeds. One red box containing green leafy substance resembling marijuana. One chrome metal stringer. ’ ’ This apartment was occupied by the defendants.

At the time defendants’ motion under Penal Code section 995 was granted, the court had read only the search warrant itself and did not have before it, nor had it read, the affidavit in support of the warrant. Relying upon the opinion of the District Court of Appeal in

People v. McEwen

AI Brief

HERNDON, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief