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 |
Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Robert Samuel FRENCH, Defendant and Appellant. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
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.
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.
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:
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.
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 ( 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 ).)
( 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Chapter 5 - §2. Elements for exclusion
...it is corroborated or otherwise verified. See Gates, 462 U.S. at 227; Spencer, 5 Cal.5th at 664; People v. French (1st Dist.2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1307, 1317; Tuadles, 7 Cal.App.4th at 1798; People v. Johnson (1st Dist.1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 742, 749, disapproved on other grounds, People v. Ca......
-
Table of Cases null
...Dist. 1990)—Ch. 5-A, §4.2.3 People v. Freeman, 107 Cal. App. 2d 44, 236 P.2d 396 (4th Dist. 1951)—Ch. 2, §7.1.1 People v. French, 201 Cal. App. 4th 1307, 134 Cal. Rptr. 3d 383 (1st Dist. 2011)—Ch. 5-A, §2.2.1(1)(b)[3][d] People v. Friend, 47 Cal. 4th 1, 97 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1, 211 P.3d 520 (200......