People v. Blashaw CA2/6

Filed 3/3/16 P. v. Blashaw CA2/6 Received for posting 3/4/16

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B263638 (Super. Ct. No. 14C-17814) Plaintiff and Respondent, (San Luis Obispo County)

v.

DAVID MICHAEL BLASHAW,

Defendant and Appellant.

David Michael Blashaw appeals after a jury convicted him of possessing heroin for sale (Health & Saf. Code,1 § 11351), possessing methamphetamine (§ 11377, subd. (a)), and possessing a smoking device (§ 11364.1, subd. (a)(1)). The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellant on probation with terms and conditions including that he serve 125 days in county jail with credit for time served. Appellant asks us to review the sealed record of the in camera proceedings held in accordance with People v. Hobbs (1994) 7 Cal.4th 948 (Hobbs), on his motions to quash the search warrant and suppress the evidence obtained against him. He also contends that his motions

1 Statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code unless otherwise stated.

should have been granted because the warrant was not supported by a showing of probable cause. We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On May 6, 2014, the Arroyo Grande Police Department executed a search warrant at appellant's residence. Appellant and several other individuals were present at the time. Heroin, methamphetamine, and hypodermic needles were all found on the premises. Officers also searched appellant's cell phone and found numerous text messages regarding drug sales. After the information was filed, appellant moved to unseal the search warrant affidavit, quash the warrant, and suppress the evidence obtained pursuant to the warrant. After conducting an in camera Hobbs hearing, the trial court ordered that a redacted version of the affidavit be unsealed and produced to the defense. The court noted it had "redact[ed] any information that might have revealed the identity of any informant, but giving [defense counsel] as much information that it could in that regard." The unsealed portions of the search warrant affidavit indicated that over the course of the preceding five months the police had received information regarding drug sales activity at appellant's residence. On one occasion, the affiant officer saw a woman leave the residence on foot, engage in a drug transaction with someone in a vehicle a short distance away. On another occasion, the driver subjected to a traffic stop told the police he had just left appellant's residence after meeting with someone there to buy marijuana. On yet another occasion, someone immediately outside of appellant's residence and a bicyclist were observed engaging in what appeared to be a drug transaction. The individuals were detained and both were found to be in possession of narcotics. The affiant also referred to two individuals who had been found in possession of methamphetamine shortly after leaving appellant's residence, one of whom had retrieved a backpack from the residence that contained narcotics. A known narcotics dealer had also exchanged