People v. Camarella

• Decision Date: 28 October 1991
• Docket Number: No. S017787,S017787
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: , 818 P.2d 63 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Robert Anthony CAMARELLA, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 780

286 Cal.Rptr. 780

54 Cal.3d 592, 818 P.2d 63

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Robert Anthony CAMARELLA, Defendant and Appellant.

No. S017787.

Supreme Court of California In Bank.

Oct. 28, 1991.

As Modified on Denial of Rehearing

Dec. 19, 1991.

Newsom, Giffen & Bacon, Newsom & Giffen, and Brennan J. Newsom, for defendant and appellant.

John K. Van de Kamp and Daniel E. Lungren, Attys. Gen., Steve White, Richard B. Iglehart and George Williamson, Chief Asst. Attys. Gen., Arnold O. Overoye and Robert R. Anderson, Asst. Attys. Gen., Thomas Y. Shigemoto, Michael Weinberger and Carlos A. Martinez, Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

Kent S. Scheidegger, Hunton & Williams, and R. Hewitt Pate, as amici curiae, on behalf of plaintiff and respondent.

LUCAS, Chief Justice.

I. Introduction

We granted review to resolve a split of authority in the Courts of Appeal regarding interpretation of the so-called "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule, as set out in United States v. Leon (1984) 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (Leon ). By virtue of California Constitution, article I, section 28, subdivision (d), the issue is purely one of federal constitutional law. (See In re Lance W. (1985) 37 Cal.3d 873, 886-887, 210 Cal.Rptr. 631, 694 P.2d 744.)

In Leon, the high court held "the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule should be modified so as not to bar the use in the prosecution's case in chief of evidence obtained by officers acting in reasonable reliance on a search warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate but ultimately found to be unsupported by probable cause." (468 U.S. at p. 900, 104 S.Ct. at p. 3409.) The court made clear that the government has the burden of establishing "objectively reasonable" reliance (id., at p. 924, 104 S.Ct. at p. 3421), and it described four limited situations in which such reliance would not be established, and in which suppression under the exclusionary rule would remain an appropriate remedy: (i) the issuing magistrate was misled by information that the officer knew or should have known was false; (ii) the magistrate "wholly abandoned his judicial role"; (iii) the affidavit was " 'so lacking in indicia of probable cause' " that it would be " 'entirely unreasonable' " for an officer to believe such cause existed; and (iv) the warrant was so facially deficient that the executing officer could not reasonably presume it to be valid. (Id., at p. 923, 104 S.Ct. at p. 3420, italics added.) This case concerns application of the third of these situations.

The issues are: In deciding whether a given case falls within the third situation described above, what test of "objective reasonableness" should apply, and what effect, if any, should a court give to the fact that a magistrate signed a search warrant later used to effect the search?

We distill from Leon, supra, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405, and its progeny the following: If a well-trained officer should reasonably have known that the affidavit failed to establish probable cause (and hence that he should not have sought a warrant), exclusion is required under the third situation described in Leon, and a court may not rely on the fact that a warrant was issued in assessing objective reasonableness of the officer's conduct in seeking the warrant. But in all other cases, unless one of the other limited Leon situations is triggered, Leon's "general" rule of nonexclusion will apply.

On the facts of this case, we find the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that a well-trained officer should reasonably have known that the affidavit at issue here failed to establish probable cause for the search of defendant's home. Pursuant to Leon, we conclude the police reasonably relied on the magistrate's issuance of the warrant, and thus it would be improper to suppress the evidence on the ground urged by defendant. Accordingly, we will reverse the decision of the Court of Appeal.

II. Facts and Procedure

Placer County Sheriff's Detective John Addoms received a telephone call from an anonymous informant who claimed defendant was selling cocaine. Addoms conducted additional investigation (described below) and prepared a draft affidavit that he showed to a deputy district attorney, who approved the document. Addoms then submitted the affidavit to a local magistrate, who found probable cause and issued a search warrant. The affidavit's recitation of facts supporting probable cause read as follows:

"Your affiant has been a Deputy Sheriff for the past five years, employed in [that] capacity by the Placer County Sheriff's Office and has acted and received the information set forth in this affidavit in that capacity.

"Your affiant is now and has been for the past two years assigned to the investigation detail thereof.

"On May 6, 1986, your affiant received a telephone call from an anonymous female. The caller told your affiant that she wanted to give your affiant information regarding a cocaine dealer, but feared for her life if her identity was disclosed as an informant and, therefore, refused to identify herself to your affiant.

"The caller told your affiant she used to be a heavy user of cocaine and that she purchased her cocaine from 'Bobby' Camarella. The caller stated that she no longer uses cocaine, but a relative of hers does and he purchases his cocaine from Camarella. The caller told your affiant that she has personally known Camarella to be selling cocaine for at least three years on a continual and ongoing basis and has heard that he had been selling cocaine for at least five years. The caller stated that Camarella works as a bartender at 'Pete and Peter's' and sells cocaine at the bar as well as at his residence. Most recently, within the past 72 hours, the caller stated that her relative told her that he had just purchased one gram of cocaine from Camarella and showed her a paper bindle and indicated that it contained the cocaine just purchased.

"The caller told your affiant that Camarella had recently moved and was living 'near the Tahoe City Golf Course,' but was unable to provide a more detailed location.

"Your affiant checked Sheriff's office records and intelligence files and discovered the following corroborating information:

"In February, 1985, your affiant spoke to a confidential untested informant hereafter referred to as the CI. The CI told your affiant that a person he knew as 'Bobby C' was an active dealer in cocaine. The CI stated that 'Bobby C' worked as a bartender at 'Pete and Peter's' bar and that on two occasions within the past month [the CI] had purchased cocaine from 'Bobby C' at 'Pete and Peter's,' one time purchasing one gram and the other time purchasing one-half gram.

"Your affiant discovered Placer County Crime report # 6272-82, attached and incorporated herein as exhibit A. The report indicates that on November 5, 1982, Camarella was arrested by Deputy Shannon of the Placer County Sheriff's Department for possession of cocaine. At the time of booking, Officer Anderson of the Placer County Sheriff's Department found on Camarella's person three sheets of paper with numerous names or initials written on them and numbers written next to them, some [of] the numbers being crossed out.

"Your affiant believes the sheets of paper to be typical of what is commonly known as 'score sheets,' records of controlled substance sales. The names or initials indicat[e] individuals and the numbers indicat[e] the money owed for a controlled substance sale. The number is then crossed out or changed when payment is made or the amount owed is changed because of additional sales.

"The Placer County Jail booking sheet indicates that Camarella's nickname is 'Bobby' and that he worked as a bartender at 'Pete and Peter's.'

"Your affiant showed Camarella's booking photograph to Detective Jones of the Placer County Sheriff's Department and he identified Camarella as 'Bobby' that works as a bartender at 'Pete and Peter's' bar and indicated that he had seen 'Bobby' at 'Pete and Peter's' on numerous occasions.

"1982 Sheriff's Department local records on Camarella indicate that Camarella lived at 1273 Alpine Way; however the caller had told your affiant that Camarella had recently moved 'near the Tahoe City Golf Course.' Your affiant checked Placer County Assessor records and they indicated that Camarella was the owner of 1273 Alpine Way and 605 Fairway Drive, 605 Fairway Drive being 'near the Tahoe City Golf Course.' Your affiant checked with the Sierra Pacific Power Company and was told that 1273 Alpine Way's power was still in the name of Camarella; however, the address had been changed to in care of Carol Campbell, indicating to your affiant that Camarella no longer lived at the residence. Believing Camarella now lived at 605 Fairway Drive, your affiant drove by the described residence and observed a yellow Jeep Wagoneer Ca.Lic. # 2AEN009 to be parked in the driveway. Your affiant checked DMV records and discovered the vehicle to be registered to Robert A. Camarella."

The affidavit went on to describe Addoms's experience and training. Addoms claimed to have participated in about 300 cases involving controlled substances, and to have been trained by various law enforcement groups in that subject. Addoms recounted that he had recently attended a seminar given by the California District Attorney's Association concerning, inter alia, search warrants in narcotics cases. Addoms concluded that based on his "education, training, and experience," he had "reasonable and probable cause to believe that grounds for the issuance of a search warrant exist, as set forth in section 1524 of the Penal Code, based upon the aforementioned information, facts and circumstances."

The magistrate issued the warrant, and shortly thereafter Detective Addoms conducted a search at 605 Fairway Drive in Tahoe City. The officers discovered various items including 310 grams of cocaine, several "score...