Filed 4/17/13 P. v. Mesiti CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.
MARK EDWARD MESITI,
Defendant and Appellant. B233416
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA354654)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Su perior Court of Los Angeles County, Anne H. Egerton, Judge. Affirmed.

Tanya Dellaca, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Da ne R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Atto rney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey and Esther P. Kim, Deputy Attorneys Gene ral, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

________________ _______________2 Defendant and appella nt Mark Edward Mesiti filed a motion to traverse and quash two search warrants, arguing that an initia l warrant lacked pr obable cause and was facially defective, and that the second was the fruit of the first. By the same motion, Mesiti sought to suppress drug-related evidence seized during the execution of the second warrant. (Pen. Code, § 1538.5.) The trial c ourt denied Mesiti’s moti on, and a jury then convicted Mesiti of manufacturing a controlle d substance, methamph etamine. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379.6, subd. (a).) On appeal, Mesiti contends the trial court erred in denying his motion attacking the search wa rrants. We affirm the judgment.
FACTS 1. Background In the summer of 2006, Mesiti lived with his teenage daughter, Alycia, in a rented property at 3576 Alexis Avenue in the City of Ceres, in Stanislaus County. In August 2006, Mesiti’s girlfriend, Shelly Walker, reported to police that Alycia was missing. Sometime later, Mesiti began liv ing with Walker and her da ughter in Los Angeles. On March 25, 2009, officers from the Ce res Police Department (CPD) executed a search warrant, which is not involved in the cu rrent appeal, at the Alexis Avenue property in Ceres. Alycia’s buried remains we re found in the property’s backyard.
2. The Stanislaus Warrant On March 27, 2009, CPD Officer Keith Grie bel presented an affidavit for a search warrant in the Stanislaus County Superior C ourt concerning events related to Mesiti and Alycia. On the same day, a superior cour t judge in Stanislaus County signed a document
entitled “SEARCH WARRANT” that is the subject of Mesiti’s current appeal. 1 Officer Griebel’s affidavit in support of the application for the search warrant included the following information based up on his personal inves tigation, and upon information and evidence provided to him by fe llow investigating officers. Alycia was

1 On appeal, Mesiti does not dispute that the Stanislaus warrant authorized the police to conduct a search. His contention that the warrant was facially defective for lack of specificity in describing th e place to be searched and the property to be seized will be addressed below.3 the subject of a missing persons investig ation beginning in August 2006. Walker reported Alycia missing. At the time, Mesi ti and Alycia lived at the Alexis Avenue property. Walker stat ed in her initial missing person re port that Alycia was supposed to go to a friend’s house in San Jose on August 11, 2006. On Augu st 13, 2006, Alycia called Walker. Alycia said she was not in San Jose, but instead wa s camping with “old
friends.” She did not disclose where. Wa lker reported Alycia missing on August 15,
2006. On September 8, 2008, Detective Mark Neri 2 spoke to Alycia’s mother, Roberta Allen, “inquiring about the status of the [m issing person] case.” Allen said she lost custody of Alycia to Mesiti in August or September 2005, and had not heard from Alycia since Mother’s Day of 2006. On September 10, 2008, Detective Neri contacted Walker “and re-interviewed her.” At that time, Walker said she and Mesiti were dating in the summer of 2006. Around the time of early to mi d-August 2006, Walker understood that Alycia was staying with friends in San Jose. Walker had plan ned on flying to San Jose on Sunday, August 13, 2006, to pick up Alycia, and then drive her home to Cere s. On Saturday, August 12, 2006, or early Sunday, August 13 , 2006, Walker spoke to Mes iti who told her to drive to Ceres without picking up Alycia because he r friends’ parents were taking her home instead. Later on August 13, 2006, Walker overheard Me siti talking on the telephone
with a female whom Walker believed was Al ycia. When the phon e call ended, Mesiti told Walker that Alycia was camping, and wo uld be back on Monday, August 14, 2006. Walker had no contact with Alycia on Monday, August 14, 2006, and has had no contact with her since that time. On August 15, 2006 , Walker reported to the CPD that Alycia was missing. Detective Neri tried to speak with Mes iti “on several occasions,” but Mesiti “made several excuses” why he could not talk. The affidavit does not provide any detail about

2 The search warrant affidavit references certain law enforcement officers as “Det.,” and “Sgt.” We assume these are short for De tective and Sergeant, respectively, and refer to them as such.4 the dates or timing of the occasions when Det ective Neri tried to ta lk to Mesiti. Read
within the framework of the affidavit, it appears that De tective Neri’s a ttempts to speak to Mesiti were in the same general time fra me of September 2008, when the detective spoke to Allen and Walker. Detective Neri finally spoke with Mesiti by telephone on September 10, 2008. Mesiti stated that, at the time Alycia went mi ssing, she had been dating a heroin user. On the weekend of Alycia’s disappearan ce, she was supposed to be with her friend, Ashley, in San Jose. She le ft while Mesiti was “working on something” in the house; he did not see the car in which Alycia left. Alycia took a backpack with some clothes and other personal items, and one of her Chihuahua dogs on a leash. On the evening of Friday, August 11 , 2006, Alycia called Mesiti to say she had reached her destination. At about 5:00 or 6:00 p.m., on Sunday, August 13, 2006, Alycia called and told Mesiti that she did not go to Ashley’s home in San Jo se, but was actually camping
with friends and would be back in “a couple of days.” Mesiti told Detective Neri that Alycia “seemed to be stressed out” about a family court matter at the time of her disappearance . She was “upset because she had to go to family court and discuss the family and domes tic violence cases that had occurred in the most recent past.” Mesiti said he did not believe Alycia ra n away because she left the majority of her clothing in her bedroo m, and a second Chihuahua at home. Though the warrant does not disclose spec ific dates, the affi davit indicates that during the course of the investigation, CPD Sergeant James Robbins spoke to three family members. The family members stated that they were in Poland when Alycia went missing. When they re turned, Mesiti told them that Alyc ia became addicted to heroin; he told them that Alycia overdosed “the night be fore she ‘left.’ ” According to Mesiti, he felt he could not call police or an ambulance when Alycia overdosed because he had an “active warrant.” Instead, Mesiti called a friend, and they revived Alycia. Mesiti told the family members that Alycia le ft on her trip the next day and did not return. Sergeant Robbins “was told” by the family members that Alycia was supposed to testify against
Mesiti “in a domestic violence case in whic h he was the suspect and the victim was [Alycia’s mother] Allen.”5 The affidavit also recited that CPD Offi cer Griebel confirmed with the Santa Clara District Attorney’s Office that Alycia was to testify against Mesiti in a domestic violence case in which he was a suspect and Allen was the victim. The District Attorney’s Office
also confirmed that Mesiti had been incarcerat ed for prior domestic violence charges. The District Attorney’s Offi ce informed Officer Griebel that the absence of Alycia’s testimony caused a plea agreement in the dome stic violence case that resulted in Mesiti suffering only a fine instead of jail time. Of ficer Griebel learned from utility records that Mesiti paid utilities at the Alexis Avenue prop erty in Ceres throug h February 2007, six months after Alycia’s disappearance. On a date not stated in the affidavit, Se rgeant Sullivan talked to Mercedes Macias,
the owner of the Ceres residence where Mesiti ha d lived. Macias said that, “a short time” after Mesiti moved out, she discovered a large hole in the middle of the backyard covered with dirt and grass. On March 25, 2009, a search warrant was is sued for the property at Alexis Avenue
in Ceres. Police executed the warrant the same day, and human remains were found buried in the backyard, wrapped in “a heavy black plastic” and bound with duct tape. The Stanislaus County Coroner’s Office dete rmined the remains we re Alycia’s through
dental records. On March 26, 2009, officers spoke with Mesiti’s sister, Diane Mesiti-Miller who said that Mesiti moved to Los Angeles to stay with Walker. Mesiti-Miller informed officers that Mesiti contacted her by email in November 2006 asking her to stay out of the investigation of Alycia’s disappearance because he had la unched his own. The email
included this statement: “Let me make one thing clear to you. Alycia did not runaway.” On March 27, 2009, CPD Detective James Yandell contacted the FBI for assistance in locating Mesiti. CPD received information that Me siti lived at “2120 Bentley Ave., Apt. # 101, Los Angeles.” Th at same day, Detective Yandell and other
officers from the CPD travelled to Los Angeles, and set up surveillance of the Bentley Avenue location. A postal worker confirmed that he regularly dropp ed off packages for
Mesiti at that address.6 Officer Griebel concluded his affidavit w ith a series of statements based on his training and experience as a police officer, in cluding that “people involved in domestic disputes, including homicide, wi ll tend to hide evidence of their crime in places which [they have] domain and control over.” Office r Griebel further stated that “people will utilize a computer and the inte rnet to research [how] to both commit and hide their crimes. They also use computers to communi cate with co-conspirators as well as publish false or misleading information in order to avoid detection and/or shift culpability.”
Officer Griebel also stated that text messa ges on cellular telephones and email messages, as well as address books “may help in identifying potent ial witnesses and/or other suspects.”
3. The Execution of th e Stanislaus Warrant On March 27, 2009, six officers from th e CPD, along with three officers from the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) execut ed the Stanislaus search warrant at 2120 South Bentley Avenue, apartment No. 101, West Los Angeles. Immediately upon entering the premises, CPD Det ective Derek Perry experienced a “burning sensation” in his throat and lungs, and on his skin. Based on his prior experience as a police officer, he believed a methamphetamine lab was in the apartment. The offi cers evacuated the apartment and transported Mesiti to the police department station in West Los Angeles. During the transport, Detective Perry noticed a chemical odor coming from Mesiti as well
as burn marks on his hands and forearms. In addition to Mesiti’s appearance, Detective Perry noticed that Mesiti behaved aggressive ly, followed by drowsy spells and outbursts of profanity. 4. The Los Angeles Warrant On March 28, 2009 a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge signed a warrant commanding police to search the premises at “2120 S. Bentley Avenue #101, West Los Angeles,” for evidence of methamphetamine and materials used for the manufacture and sale of methamphetamine. LAPD Detective Frank Lyga presented the affidavit for the warrant. Detective Lyga’s affidavit in su pport of the request for the search warrant included the following information.7 Detective Lyga is an experienced narco tics officer. On March 28, 2009, Detective Lyga received a request from a supervisor to re spond to assist officers of the CPD at the scene of a possible methamphetamine laborat ory at 2120 South Be ntley Avenue, West Los Angeles, inside an apartment. When he arrived at the scene, Detective Lyga spoke to officers from the CPD who explained that they entered the apartment to serve a search
warrant. The officers cleared th e apartment, then, wh en one of the offi cers forced open
the door of a locked bathroom, he observed “numerous glass beakers and hoses.” Based on these observations, the officer formed th e opinion that the bathroom contained an active drug lab. The officers evacuated the ap artment, and had called for assistance from the LAPD. Detective Lyga interviewed De tective Yandell regardi ng the items observed in the bathroom. Based on his experience, Detective Lyga formed the opinion that the apartment contained an activ e methamphetamine lab. 5. Execution of the Los Angeles Warrant After obtaining the Los Angeles warrant , LAPD officers returned to Mesiti’s apartment, and executed the se arch warrant. LAPD Detectiv e David Richardson returned to the scene first, at about 8: 00 p.m. Inside the apartment, there were several packages
with Mesiti’s name and the address “2120 S outh Bentley Avenue, Ap artment 101.” The apartment was “very cluttered” and “very jumble d,” with “a lot of dirty items.” Inside a hallway bathroom, Detective Richardson lo cated and photographed a methamphetamine lab consisting of glassware, h eating flasks, heating mantles, gallons of solvents, support racks for laboratory grade glassware, and a fa n to ventilate fumes out of the bathroom.
Plastic containers with various different powders in each littere d the apartment. Detective Lyga also returned to the apartment. Detective Lyga and his fellow officers
recovered chemicals and substances consiste nt with the manufactur ing and production of methamphetamine. 6. The Criminal Proceedings The People filed an information chargi ng Mesiti with manufac turing a controlled substance, methamphetamine (count 1; Hea lth & Saf. Code, § 11379.6, subd. (a)); and8 child abuse (count 3; Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (a)). 3 Mesiti filed a motion to traverse and quash the Stanislaus search warrant and th e Los Angeles search warrant. As to the Stanislaus warrant, Mesiti argued it was base d on a “ ‘barebones’ ” affidavit, and otherwise was “lacking fundame ntal constitutional safeguards.” As to the Los Angeles warrant, Mesiti argued that it was the fruit of th e deficient, underlying Stanislaus warrant. Mesiti’s motion challenged the Stanislaus warrant on two front s. First, “[t]he inartfully drawn out of county warrant form not only faile d to state the city, co unty or state where the property to be searched was located, it did not even authorize a search of the premises.” (Boldface & italics omitted.) Seco nd, the motion argued that more than two years had passed from Alycia’s death to the i ssuance of the Stanislaus warrant. During that time, Mesiti moved to Los Angeles an d occupied an apartment residence with Walker and her child. It necessarily follo wed that the Stanislaus warrant was not supported by probable cause that evidence of a crime would be found at the Los Angeles premises. As argued in the mo tion, the affidavit in support of the Stanislaus search warrant set forth a detailed description of the facts leading to the discovery of Alycia’s body in Ceres, but it “lacked a single fact that would lead a person to a reasonable suspicion that evidence of the Ceres homic ide would be found in the Los Angeles residence.” (Boldface & italics omitted.) “The fact that . . . Mesiti was a person of interest in an over two-year old homicide” did not “in itself” show probable cause for a search of his present residence in Los Angeles. On February 1, 2010, the parties argued th e motion to the trial court. The record before us on appeal shows that no testimony was taken at the hearing on the motion; the arguments in the moving and opposing papers we re based on references to the face of the warrants being challenged by Mesiti. At the conclusion of the heari ng, the court denied
the motion for the follo wing stated reasons:

3 The information also incl uded a count for possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine (count 2; Health & Saf. Code , § 11378). The record does not disclose the disposition of count 2; it was not submitted to the jury at the time of trial.9 “At the outset . . . , addressing the i ssues raised regarding the Stanislaus County warrant, the court disagrees w ith the characterization made by the defense as to the ways in which the warra nt and affidavit were deficient. It may be that there were some technica l irregularities, but I think nothing that
raises to the level of cau sing any sort of constitutional error. I think it was crystal clear what the – based upon the affidavit and the warrant, it was crystal clear what premises were to be searched. [¶] . . . I do not agree in the strongest terms about the allegati on by counsel that this was a bare
bones affidavit. I believe that it’s set forth in great detail the background of the investigation. And while the death of the victim in this case occurred quite some time ago, there was very fresh evidence whic h gave rise to obtaining the search warrant and I belie ve that any deficiencies that were accused or alleged sort of imperfections in the process, were insufficient to
cause this court to set th at warrant aside.” Addressing the Los Angeles warrant, the c ourt essentially found that the original police entry into Mesiti’s apar tment had been legal under th e Stanislaus warrant. As a result, the ensuing Los Ange les warrant was proper. The charges against Mesiti were tried to a jury. Before the cause was submitted to the jury, the trial court gran ted Mesiti’s section 1118.1 motion as to count 3. The
evidence at trial established th e facts summarized above in the search of Mesiti’s local residence under the Los Angeles warrant. The jury returned a verdict finding Mesiti guilty of manufacturing a controlled substanc e, methamphetamine. The trial court
sentenced Mesiti to a total term of five years in state prison. Mesiti filed a timely notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
I. Probable Cause Mesiti claims his drug manufacturing c onviction must be reversed because the
evidence of the offense was sei zed from his residence in violation of his right to be free
from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments10 of the United States Constitution and article I, section 13 of the California Constitution. Specifically, he argues that neither the Stan islaus warrant nor the Los Angeles warrant were supported by probable cause. Mesiti argues his motion to traverse and quash the Stanislaus and Los Angeles warrants, and to suppress the drug-rela ted evidence seized from his Los Angeles apartment should ha ve been granted. We disagree.
A. Standard of Review Under Penal Code section 1538.5, subd ivision (a), a defendant may move to suppress evidence gathered in violation of th e state and or federal Constitutions. Here, Mesiti’s motion to suppress argued there wa s no probable cause for either warrant, resulting in a violation of the state and fede ral Constitutions. (U.S. Const., 4th Amend.; Cal. Const., art. I, § 13 [no search warrant sh all issue except upon probable cause].) In reviewing a denial of a motion to suppress evid ence, we defer to the trial court’s factual findings, upholding them when they are supported by subs tantial eviden ce; we then independently review the trial court’s decision , based on the historical facts, that the
search did not violate th e Fourth Amendment. ( People v. Memro (1995) 11 Cal.4th 786, 846.) “The task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances se t forth in the affidavit . . . including the ‘veracity’ and ‘basis of knowledge’ of persons supplying hearsay info rmation, there is a fair probability that . . . eviden ce of a crime will be found in a particular place. And the duty of a reviewing court is simply to ensure that the magistrate had a ‘substantial basis for . . . [concluding]’ that probable cause existed.” ( Illinois v. Gates (1983) 462 U.S. 213, 238-239.) A warrant is presumed valid; the defendant bears the burden of proving a warrant is not supported by probable cause. ( People v. Amador (2000) 24 Cal.4th 387, 393 ( Amador ).) Accordingly, we pay great deference to the magistrate’s determination of probable cause on review. ( People v. Tuadles (1992) 7 Cal.App.4t h 1777, 1783; see
Illinois v. Gates
, supra , at pp. 236-241.)11 B. Analysis Mesiti contends the affidavit in support of the Stanislaus search warrant did not support a finding of probable cause that eviden ce related to Alycia’s death in 2006 would be found in Mesiti’s Los Angeles apartment in 2009. Mesiti argues the affidavit fails to show a nexus between the discovery of Alycia ’s remains in Ceres, and the apartment on South Bentley Avenue in Los Angeles. We disagree. Mesiti was Alycia’s father; they lived to gether at the property where Alycia’s body was discovered. He did not report Alycia missing, his gi rlfriend did. Mesiti left the property about six months after Alycia disappear ed. He told his sister to stay out of the missing person investigation, a nd told his sister that he knew Alycia did not run away. When interviewed by police, Me siti stated that when Alycia went missing she left behind personal possessions such as clothing and a computer. At the time Mesiti was vacating the premises, the landlord obser ved Mesiti’s sister helping to clean out items from the
home.
Officer Griebel stated that in his tr aining and experience as a police officer, “people involved in dom estic disputes, including homicide, will tend to hide evidence of their crime in places which [the y have] domain and control over.” Officer Griebel further stated that “people will utili ze a computer and the internet to research [how] to both commit and hide their crimes. They also use computers to communicate with coconspirators as well as publish false or mislea ding information in order to avoid detection and/or shift culpability.” Officer Griebel al so stated that text messages on cellular telephones and email messages, as well as address books “may help in identifying potential witnesses and/or other suspects.” Based on the totality of the circumstances , we are satisfied there was substantial evidence to show a fair prob ability that evidence related to Alycia’s d eath would be found at Mesiti’s new residence in Los Angele s even two and one-half years later. This was not a search of a mere “person of intere st” in a cold case homicide. This was a search of a home of the parent of a victim whose homicide or the disposal of her body took place in the prior family home. There was a fair proba bility that as the victim’s12 father, Mesiti, may have retained Alycia’s personal effects, electronic communications or the computer he owned during the time of her disappearance. These items, Officer Griebel indicated, would be evidence of a crime and likely still in his possession. Mesiti’s argument that there are “stale fact s” in the affidavit does not persuade us to find otherwise. ( People v. Hulland (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1646, 1652 [information that is remote in time may be deemed stale and thus un worthy of consideration for probable cause in a warrant].) Given the tota lity of the circumstances, in particular the special relationship between Mes iti and the victim, the objects of the search, we disagree
that the remoteness of the crime must as a matter of law defeat a finding of probable cause. Mesiti argues that any evidence related to Alycia’s death had to be several months to several years old by the time the affidav it was presented. Mesiti ignores that the discovery of Alycia’s body was freshly di scovered evidence. Before the body was discovered, there was not a homicide to inves tigate. Once the body was discovered, with a connection to Mesiti, a search warrant was obtained. Though the death occurred more than two years ago, there was a nexus to Mesiti’s current home ba sed upon the familial relationship, and the tendency of domestic violence suspects, as noted by Officer Griebel, to keep materials related to the violence in areas under a suspect’s control.
II. The Form and Content of the St anislaus Warrant (Particularity)
Mesiti next contends the Stanislaus warra nt was facially defective because it failed to describe with sufficient particularity the place to be searched and the items to be seized. In making his argument, Mesiti focuses on the four-page warrant itself, disregarding CPD Officer Griebel’s affidavit. Mesiti claims that after the warrant was issued in Stanislaus, it was faxed to Los Angeles where it was executed by waiting CPD officers, assisted by the LAPD. Mesiti asserts: “The affida vit was not referenced in the search warrant and was not attached [to th e search warrant] when the [search warrant] was faxed” to Los Angeles from Stanislaus Co unty. We find the search warrant was not facially defective.13 A search warrant must particularly descri be the place to be searched so that it limits the search to areas which probable caus e permits and avoid ex ploratory searches. ( Amador
, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 392.) In short, the particularity requirement precludes issuance of a warrant authorizing a fishing expedition in any and all waters at the discretion of the police officers executing th e warrant. At the same time, complete precision in describing the place to be search ed is not required; if a description in a
warrant allows the officer ex ecuting the warrant to reasonably ascertain and identify the place intended to be search ed under the warrant, the warrant will pass constitutional particularity requirements. ( Ibid .) Thus, where part of the de scription of the premises to be searched is inaccurate, but the description has other parts that identify the place to be searched with particularity, searches pursuan t to such warrants have been “ ‘routinely upheld.’ ” ( Amador, supra , at p. 392, quoting United States v. Gitcho (8th Cir. 1979) 601 F.2d 369, 371.) The test for determining the sufficiency of the description of the place to be searched is whether the place to be search ed is described with sufficient particularity “ ‘as to enable the executing officer to locate and identify the premises with reasonable effort, and whether there is any reasonable probability that another premise might be mistakenly searched.’ ” ( Amador, supra , at p. 393, quoting United States v. Gitcho,

supra , at p. 371.)
While the address reflected in the Stanis laus warrant and affidavit was incorrectly identified the property as 2120 Bentley Avenue , rather than South Bentley Avenue, and identified the property as being in Los Angele s, rather than in th e neighborhood of Los Angeles known as West Los Angeles, the warrant described with particularity the exterior of the apartment, and the efforts of the CPD officers to verify that Mesiti resided at the apartment building, in a particular unit (No. 101). There was no inaccuracy in the description of the unit (No. 101) authorized to be searched. There was no reasonable probability that another prem ises might have been mist akenly searched by the CPD
officers.14 As for Mesiti’s assertion that the affidav it was not referenced in the search warrant
and was not attached to the search warrant when the search warrant was faxed to Los Angeles from Stanislaus County, he either doe s not include a referen ce to the record, or
the references that he does in clude do not support his claim. 4 The warrant expressly states that it was proved up by the affidavit, and the fax codes printed on the pages of the documents in the record show that 20 pages we re faxed from Stanislaus to Los Angeles. In Mesiti’s motion to traverse, he presented the search warrant and affidavit together. We see no evidence showing that the four-p age Stanislaus warrant was faxed to Los Angeles without the supporting affidavit. There was no evidence taken on this issue at the time of the hearing on Mesiti’s motion to quash.
Mesiti also contends the Stanislaus warra nt “imposed no meani ngful restriction on
the items to be searched and seized.” He argues the warrant did not identify him as a suspect, and thus unconstitutionally allowed an overbroad seizure of items not connected to any specific person. He argues these defect s were not cured by the affidavit because it
was not referenced in the warrant and not a ttached to the warrant when it was faxed. For the reasons explained above, we find the ev idence shows the affida vit was attached to
the warrant. The entire documen t sufficiently focused on evid ence related to Mesiti and Alycia.
III. Good Faith Mesiti contends the good fa ith reliance exception (see United States v. Leon (1984) 468 U.S. 897 ( Leon )) does not apply in his case. Under Leon , evidence seized pursuant to a defective search warrant is ad missible if the executing officer’s reliance on the warrant was objectively reasonable. Even if our determination of probable cause is incorrect, we find the good faith reliance exception applies.

4 “There is a fundamental distinction . . . between a warrant and the underlying affidavit, and the affidavit is not necessarily pa rt of the warrant or available to define the scope of the warrant.” ( People v. MacAvoy (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 746, 755.)15 The good faith reliance ex ception “is not a magic lamp for police officers to rub whenever they find them selves in trouble [in ex ecuting a warrant].” ( People v. Hulland
, supra, 110 Cal.App.4th at p. 1656.) As the Un ited States Supreme Court explained in
Leon , the suppression of eviden ce remains an appropriate remedy in a variety of
circumstances. Where an affiant misled th e magistrate who issu ed the warrant with
information the affiant knew or should have kn own was false, or the magistrate wholly abandoned his judicial function, or the warra nt was based on an affidavit so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render an ex ecuting officer’s belief in the existence of probable cause “entirely unreasonable,” or if the warrant itself is facially deficient, suppression may still be proper. ( Leon , supra , 468 U.S. at p. 923.) But, as the Supreme
Court reasoned in Leon : “suppressing evidence obtained in objectively reasonable reliance on a subsequently invalidated search warrant cannot justify the substantial costs of exclusion,” as long as the law enfo rcement officer acted in good faith. ( Id. at p. 922;
see also United States v. Ross (1982) 456 U.S. 798, 823.) In Mesiti’s case, the offi cers who executed the Stanislaus warrant acted in good faith reliance on the warrant. There is nothing in the record to show that any of the facts in the supporting affidavit were false. Although the warrant might have been more carefully crafted, the record does not sup port a conclusion that the magistrate wholly abandoned his judicial function. The warra nt and affidavit incl uded extensive facts showing an investigation, and we see nothing to support the conclu sion that the executing
officers should have known th ere was no support for the ma gistrate’s probable cause determination. As we explained above, we do not find the warrant facially defective.
IV. Pitchess Discovery In September 2010, Mesiti filed a motion fo r discovery of the personnel records of several police officers. (See Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531 ( Pitchess ); see Pen. Code, § 832.5; Evid. Code, § 1043 et seq.) Mesiti sought review and disclosure
of relevant materials concerni ng the following officers: CP D Detectives Yandell, Perry, and Officer Griebel; former CPD Detective Ne ri; and LAPD Detective Lyga. The motion16 sought discovery of complaints by members of the public of dishonesty, falsification of police reports, and similar categories bearing on credibility.
The trial court denied Mesiti’s Pitchess motion as to LAPD Detective Lyga. At the hearing, Mesiti’s counsel conceded that all of Detective Lyga’s acts had ensued
from the issuance and execution of the Stanislaus warrant connected with the CPD. The court found no good cause for discovery as to Detective Lyga because there was no allegation of misconduct as to him. At a later hearing, new counsel appeared on behalf of Mesiti, and conceded that
there were defects in the Pitchess motion filed by Mesiti’s former counsel. The court
then denied the motion as to the CPD officers. Thereafter, Mesiti’s new counsel, filed a second Pitchess motion, seeking discovery as to all of the officers noted ab ove, and also CPD Officer Jeremy Caron. The trial court granted Pitchess discovery as to CPD Officer Caron, Detectives Yandell, and Perry, and LAPD Detective Lyga. The court found “no ba sis” for discovery of the personnel records of CPD Detective Neri or Officer Griebel based on the prosecutor’s representation that they were not going to be called as witnesses in the drug matter being tried in Los Angeles, and thus would not be subject to im peachment with anything in their personnel files. 5 On the same day, the court conducted an in camera review of
records from the CPD and LAPD to determine whether rele vant, discoverable material existed. The court ordered discovery of ite ms as to LAPD Detective Lyga; the court
found no discoverable items as to CPD Officer Caron and De tectives Yandell and Perry. Mesiti requested our court to conduct an independent review to determine whether the trial court conducted a proper hearing, and made a proper ruling after the in camera hearing on his Pitchess motion. (See People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216.) We have reviewed the transcript of the in camera h earing and conclude the trial court conducted the hearing properly, describing the nature of all complaints, if any, against the officers,

5 The ruling on the Pitchess discovery motion occurred afte r the issue of the validity of the warrants had already b een litigated and concluded.17 and we find the court did not abuse its discre tion in ordering the custodian of records to disclose discovery as noted above.
DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

BIGELOW, P. J.

We concur:

RUBIN, J.

GRIMES, J.