People v. French

• Decision Date: 14 December 2011
• Docket Number: No. A130599.,A130599.
• Citation: 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 15022,2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 17906,201 Cal.App.4th 1307,134 Cal.Rptr.3d 383
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Robert Samuel FRENCH, Defendant and Appellant.

201 Cal.App.4th 1307

134 Cal.Rptr.3d 383

11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 15,022

2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 17,906

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.Robert Samuel FRENCH, Defendant and Appellant.

No. A130599.

Court of Appeal, First District, Division 5, California.

Dec. 14, 2011.

Stephanie Clarke, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Assistant Attorney General, Rene A. Chacon and David M. Baskind, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

SIMONS, J.

A search warrant affidavit contains information from three informants, none of whom are reliable. Each informant states two named individuals are selling drugs from a particular residence and drive a particular vehicle. The affiant officer corroborates those facts and determines that one of the alleged drug dealers has a history of narcotics offenses, but fails to include in the affidavit the dates and any details of those offenses. We conclude that the affidavit was insufficient to establish probable cause to issue the warrant, in part because the police corroboration of the informants' statements and the “interlocking” details of those statements related to “pedestrian” facts. However, we find the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applicable and affirm.

BACKGROUND

In March 2010, Eureka Police Officer Gary Cooper sought a warrant to search the persons of Robert Samuel French (defendant) and Maria Camacho, a house on Summer Street in Eureka where defendant and Camacho resided, and a black pickup truck owned by defendant.

Cooper's affidavit in support of the application for a search warrant stated in relevant part:

“In the latter part of 2009 I arrested a subject and took him to jail. While enroute [to] the jail I asked the subject who he knew that was dealing drugs in Eureka. The subject told me of a person named Robert who lived on the corner of Harris and Summer. I asked the subject how he knew Robert was selling drugs. The subject told me his wife bought her heroin from Robert. I was driving on Broadway going towards the jail. I drove up Harris Street and asked the subject to point the house out to me as we drove past. As we drove past the subject pointed to the residence on the south east corner of Harris and Summer Streets. The subject also said Robert drove the black colored truck that was parked in front of the residence on Summer Street.

“After dropping the subject off at the jail I drove back to the residence on the corner of Harris and Summer Street. The black truck was still parked in front of the residence on the summer street side. I ran a registration check on the vehicle. The return information from dispatch showed the vehicle was registered to Robert French with an address of 3105 Summer Street.

“On 02–10–10 Officer J. Braud and I were talking to a person who here in will be referred to as confidential reliable informant one. (CRI–1). I was talking to CRI–1 about people in Eureka who sold drugs, specifically heroin or meth. CRI–1 told us a woman named Maria and her boyfriend Robert who were selling heroin. I asked CRI–1 where Maria and Robert lived. CRI–1 said they lived on the corner of Harris and Summer Street. I asked CRI–1 if Robert or Maria drove any cars. CRI–1 said [he/she] only knew of a black colored full size truck Robert drove. I asked CRI–1 if [he/she] knew the last names of Maria and Robert. CRI–1 said he/she knew Maria's last name was Camacho. [He/she] said he/she didn't know Robert's last name. I asked CRI–1 where Camacho keeps her drugs she sells. [He/she] said she keeps it in the front of her pants so if she gets stopped by a male police officer he won't search the front of her pants. CRI–1 said she also keeps it in a back pack she keeps with her.

“I asked CRI–1 if Robert was also selling. CRI–1 said Robert does sell meth and heroin, but not as much as Maria.

“On –2–24–10 I talked with a person who here in will be referred to as CRI–2. CRI–2 has given information to law enforcement in the past. The information was corroborated and criminal cases were made behind the information.

“I asked CRI–2 who [he/she] knew that was selling drugs. CRI–2 told me of a woman named Maria Camacho who lived on the corner of Harris and Summer Street. CRI–2 said Camacho deals heroin and meth out of her house with her boyfriend. I asked CRI–2 if [he/she] knew the name of Camacho's boyfriend and if he was selling meth and heroin also. CRI–2 said he/she only knew the boyfriend's first name as Ron and Ron was also selling meth and heroin out of the house.

“I asked CRI–2 if [he/she] knew of any vehicles Camacho and Ron might drive. CRI–2 said Ron drives a black truck and Camacho drives a big red sedan.

“I believe based on the previous information I have regarding Robert French that Ron is actually Robert. This is based on the registered owner information on the black truck and other people telling me there is a Robert living at the residence.

“I ran a criminal history check on Camacho through dispatch. The return information showed she has multiple arrests and convictions for possession of controlled substance for sale, and transportation of controlled substance.

“I have talked with CRI–2 on and off for the last two weeks, CRI–2 told me both Robert and Maria are still dealing out of their house on Harris and Summer Street. I asked CRI–2 how [he/she] knew this. He/she said [he/she] has been to their house recently and has seen people who came to the house. CRI–2 saw Robert and Maria take them in another room. The people left a short time later. CRI–2 believed the people who came to [the] house were buying drugs from Robert and Maria.”

A magistrate signed the search warrant and the police served it on March 10, 2010. In the house the police discovered methamphetamine, marijuana, firearms, and paraphernalia associated with drug use and sales. The police detained defendant at a different location as he was getting into his vehicle, and discovered on his person and in a backpack methamphetamine, marijuana, psilocybin mushrooms, prescription pills, and two syringes.

In April 2010, the Humboldt County District Attorney filed an amended complaint charging defendant with various narcotics offenses. Defendant moved to suppress all the evidence seized pursuant to the search warrant. Following a joint preliminary hearing and suppression hearing, the motion to suppress was denied on the basis that there was probable cause for issuance of the warrant and, if not, the good faith exception applied. An information was filed charging defendant with possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf.Code, § 11378) (count 1); transportation of methamphetamine (Health & Saf.Code, § 11379, subd. (a)) (count 2); transportation of psilocybin mushrooms (Health & Saf.Code, § 11379, subd. (a)) (count 3); and allowing a place to be used for preparing or storing methamphetamine (Health & Saf.Code, § 11366.5, subd. (a)) (count 4), with an enhancement for being armed with a firearm (Pen.Code, § 12022, subd. (a)(1)).

The trial court granted defendant's Penal Code section 995 motion to dismiss count 4. The court denied defendant's Penal Code section 1538.5, subdivision (i) renewed motion to suppress the evidence obtained pursuant to the search warrant, reasoning that “[e]ach informant, the untested first informant, and each confidential reliable informant (CRI) independently corroborate one another, establishing probable cause to search.”

Defendant pleaded guilty to count 3 and the remaining counts were dismissed. Imposition of sentence was suspended, and defendant was placed on three years' probation with various conditions, including that he serve 120 days in jail. This appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

I. Cooper's Affidavit Failed to Establish Probable Cause

A. The Legal Framework

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” The “ ‘physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed.’ [Citation.]” ( Payton v. New York (1980) 445 U.S. 573, 585–586, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639; see also People v. Campa (1984) 36 Cal.3d 870, 878–879, 206 Cal.Rptr. 114, 686 P.2d 634( Campa ).)

“The question facing a reviewing court asked to determine whether probable cause supported the issuance of the warrant is whether the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding a fair probability existed that a search would uncover wrongdoing. [Citations.] ‘The task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, commonsense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the “veracity” and “basis of knowledge” of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.’ [Citation.]” ( People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1040–1041, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 5 P.3d 68, quoting Illinois v. Gates (1983) 462 U.S. 213, 238–239, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527( Gates ); accord, People v. Scott (2011) 52 Cal.4th 452, 483, 129 Cal.Rptr.3d 91, 257 P.3d 703.) Whether an affidavit provided the magistrate “ ‘substantial basis' ” for concluding there was probable cause is an issue of law “subject to our independent review.” ( People v. Camarella (1991) 54 Cal.3d 592, 601, 286 Cal.Rptr. 780, 818 P.2d 63( Camarella ).) But, because “[r]easonable minds frequently may differ on the question whether a particular affidavit establishes probable cause,” we accord deference to the magistrate's determination and “ ‘doubtful...