Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/3d/219/1279.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 20:56:10+00:00

Document:
Julie Schumer, Glass & Kramer and William Everett Glass for Defendant and Appellant.
John K. Van de Kamp, Attorney General, Richard B. Iglehart, Chief Assistant Attorney General, John H. Sugiyama, Assistant Attorney General, Blair W. Hoffman, Mary A. Roth and Martin S. Kaye, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In this case we are called upon to resolve the tension between the due process rights of the defendant and the public need to protect the identity of a confidential informant. (See Evid. Code, § 1042, subd. (b).) The issue before us is whether the superior court erred in upholding a warrant search where the major portion of the affidavit in support of the warrant was sealed to protect the informant's identity.
We find that the procedures utilized by the magistrate and the superior court, while they met the state's need to protect confidentiality of an informant, did not sufficiently safeguard the defendant's right to test the affidavit. We hold that where portions of an affidavit are sealed, procedures similar to those established in People v. Luttenberger (1990) 50 Cal. 3d 1 [265 Cal. Rptr. 690, 784 P.2d 633] should be utilized in order to assure fairness to both the prosecution and the defendant. Because appellant's rights were not protected in this instance, we reverse and remand the case to the superior court for further proceedings.
The offenses occurred on December 18, 1986. The issue of the propriety of sealing the affidavit was raised for the first time by a written motion which is not included in the record. The motion was heard at hearings on March 20 and April 27, 1987. Appellant objected to the sealing of the affidavit and moved to unseal it, arguing that the sealing deprived him of his due process rights under Franks v. Delaware (1978) 438 U.S. 154 [57 L. Ed. 2d 667, 98 S. Ct. 2674] (hereafter Franks). In particular, he argued that he could not attack probable cause and that he could not allege that the affidavit contained misstatements or omissions which might show that the statements supporting a finding of probable cause were not truthful. The court (the magistrate who had issued the warrant) addressed both issues. [219 Cal. App. 3d 1283] Regarding probable cause, the court said that appellant's rights were protected because a series of judges would review the affidavit. But the court found the Franks issue more troublesome, noting, "No amount of judicial review will question the accuracy of the facts in the affidavit. The only way that accuracy can be questioned is if (a) the defense is aware of it and (b) they then learn things that are to the contrary and bring that to the attention of the Court."
Ultimately the court, stating that in this case disclosure of the sealed affidavit would reveal the identity of the informant, denied the motion, "even understanding that that would mean that no one from the defense side will ever be able to review the affidavit and say that there were false facts reported."
Preliminary hearing was held on February 10, 1988. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court held appellant to answer for violations of Health and Safety Code sections 11351, 11359, and 11378, with an enhancement under Penal Code section 1203.073, subdivision (b)(1),fn. 1 that is, possession for sale of more than one ounce of cocaine, possession for sale of marijuana, and possession for sale of methamphetamine, with an ineligibility for probation enhancement. An information charging these offenses was filed, and appellant moved to dismiss it pursuant to section 995, alleging that he was denied a substantial right at the preliminary hearing because the magistrate erred in refusing to unseal the affidavit. (See Jennings v. Superior Court (1967) 66 Cal. 2d 867 [59 Cal. Rptr. 440, 428 P.2d 304]; People v. Hertz (1980) 103 Cal. App. 3d 770, 776 [163 Cal. Rptr. 233]; 4 Witkin & Epstein, Cal. Criminal Law (2d ed. 1989) Proceedings Before Trial, §§ 2110-2111, pp. 2479-2482.) The district attorney opposed the motion, and after hearing argument, the superior court denied the motion on May 16, 1988.
Appellant filed a petition for a writ of prohibition in this court in which he again challenged the magistrate's refusal to unseal the affidavit. (Seibel v. Superior Court, No. A042501.) After obtaining opposition and reviewing the sealed records, this court (White, P.J., Barry-Deal, J., and Strankman, J.) denied the writ and ordered the affidavits resealed.
Appellant then moved in the superior court to suppress evidence under section 1538.5, alleging that the warrant was "so totally lacking in probable cause" that no officer could rely on it in good faith, and that the information in the sealed affidavit must have been stale. He repeatedly alluded to the sealed affidavit when he asserted that he had "no information" or that the affidavit (that is, the unsealed portions) contained "no information" which [219 Cal. App. 3d 1284] would support a finding of probable cause or good faith. While he did not expressly reargue the propriety of the magistrate's refusal to unseal the affidavit or ask that it be unsealed, he concluded his written motion with these words: "Defendant has been repeatedly denied access to the remaining sealed portions of the warrant affidavit that profess to provide further evidence of probable cause. Defendant has no information that would lead him to believe that the statements contained in the sealed portion of the warrant are in fact reliable, or provide further corroboration of the meager information contained in the unsealed portion of the warrant. In fact, Defendant has information that he did not sell cocaine to any person within seven days of December 11, 1986, which would call into serious question the reliability and accuracy of the information provided by the informant herein."
At the hearing on the section 1538.5 motion, appellant argued several points, including staleness of the authorization for nighttime service. Regarding the sealed affidavit, he took this position: "We can't talk about the truth about it and do a Franks, because it is sealed. But assuming that it's true, which you have to do at this point ...." The court denied the section 1538.5 motion, and on January 9, 1989, appellant withdrew his not guilty plea and entered pleas of guilty to the charged offenses and the enhancement of probation ineligibility. The plea was entered with the understanding that appellant would be sentenced to three years in prison, that he would file a notice of appeal upon sentence, and that he would be granted bail pending appeal. The court sentenced appellant to a three-year prison term on count one and concurrent two-year terms on the other two counts.
Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal from the judgment, specifying issues of denial of his sections 1538.5 and 995 motions.
The search warrant was issued on December 11, 1986, for the search of appellant's person, his automobile, and his residence at 4891-A Myrtle Drive in Concord, and authorized a nighttime search only on that night. The warrant authorized the seizure of drugs, paraphernalia, indicia of ownership, and money, including marked money. Walnut Creek Police Officer Loren Cattolico, a member of the Central Contra Costa County Narcotics Enforcement Team, executed the affidavit in support of the warrant, which included corroborating information as to appellant's identity and residence and the expertise and experience of the officer.
Three pages relating to the informant were sealed. The warrant did include the following paragraph: "Within the last seven days, ... a CI [confidential informant] ... told me of a man named William Seibel who [219 Cal. App. 3d 1285] sold cocaine. CI purchased an amount of cocaine from William Seibel ...."
Officer Cattolico and other officers served the warrant on appellant in his home at about 8 p.m. on December 18, 1986.fn. 2 The search of the very small one-bedroom house produced, among other things, indicia of ownership of the house, $1,595 in cash, 929 grams of cocaine, 81 grams of marijuana, 13.7 grams of methamphetamine, and drug packaging materials such as baggies.
Also, on January 9, 1989, when appellant changed his plea to one of guilty, he did so with the express understanding of the court and both counsel that the defense would immediately "file a Notice of Appeal upon sentence, and he [appellant] will be granted bail pending appeal." The People argue only that the issue is not cognizable on appeal. They fail to note that if they are correct, a proper procedure in keeping with the agreement entered into in open court would be for this court to vacate appellant's guilty plea and remand the case for trial, after which appellant presumably could appeal and properly raise the issue. In any event, as will appear below, appellant's guilty plea must be vacated because he was deprived of his due process rights by the manner in which the validity of the search warrant was determined by the magistrate. Accordingly, we reject the People's attack on the propriety of the appeal.
Appellant contends that error occurred below in the denial of his motion to unseal the affidavit because there was no showing that the information contained in it was acquired "in confidence." His argument is based on the following language of Evidence Code sections 1040 and 1042.
Evidence Code section 1040 defines "'official information'" as information "acquired in confidence." (Evid. Code, § 1040, subd. (a).)fn. 3 Appellant's argument that there was no showing below that the information in the sealed affidavit was acquired in confidence misses the point. The privilege [219 Cal. App. 3d 1287] claimed and upheld here was not one of official information, but of identity of the informant. This distinction was critical in the recent decision, People v. Otte (1989) 214 Cal. App. 3d 1522 [263 Cal. Rptr. 393], review denied January 18, 1990. In Otte the defendant moved to discover the identity of an informant who had supplied information relied on by the police in obtaining a search warrant for defendant's residence and vehicle. The trial court granted the motion, and when the People refused to disclose the identity of the informant, the court dismissed the information. On appeal by the People, the appellate court reversed.
 Here, as in Otte, the statutory privilege claimed is not based upon official information having been given "in confidence," but rather on the public interest in protecting the identity of the informant who gave information, which interest outweighs the need of the defense for disclosure. On the other hand, unlike Otte, here the sealed portion of the affidavit contained more than the identity of the informant; it also contained a narrative of a controlled buy. If the trial court correctly found that these facts were properly sealed, its finding should have been based not on the concept that they were "official information," but on the concern that revealing them would have revealed the identity of the informant. Appellant's attack based on an "official information" approach cannot prevail under the circumstances.
Appellant complains that the "wholesale sealing of the affidavit" and the procedures in which the magistrate, the superior court, and this court have reviewed the sealed affidavit deprived him of a full and fair opportunity to traverse the warrant and to raise questions of sufficiency of the warrant under Illinois v. Gates (1983) 462 U.S. 213 [76 L. Ed. 2d 527, 103 S. Ct. 2317], or questions concerning veracity of the facts alleged in the affidavit under Franks, supra, 438 U.S. 154. We do not agree that the sealing of what amounted to the entire affidavit necessarily deprived appellant of his rights, but we do agree that the manner in which the magistrate and the superior court reviewed the affidavit was not sufficient to protect his interests.
Appellant argues, however, that the sealing of affidavits is inconsistent with his right to raise questions concerning the legal sufficiency of the warrant under Illinois v. Gates, supra, 462 U.S. 213, and his due process right protected by the Franks decision to attack the veracity of the facts alleged in the affidavit. Under Franks, if the defendant makes a "substantial [219 Cal. App. 3d 1292] preliminary showing" that an affidavit in support of a search warrant contains a false statement which was necessary to a finding of probable cause, the defendant is entitled under the Fourth Amendment to a hearing. (Franks, supra, 438 U.S. at pp. 155-156 [57 L.Ed.2d at p. 672]; People v. Broome (1988) 201 Cal. App. 3d 1479, 1490 [247 Cal. Rptr. 854].) Appellant suggests that a defendant cannot meet the burden of making a "substantial preliminary showing" if a large part or all of an affidavit is sealed.
As a solution to this dilemma appellant in essence asks, as he did below, for discovery. The right to discovery by a criminal defendant was recently clarified by our Supreme Court in People v. Luttenberger, supra, 50 Cal. 3d 1, which thoroughly analyzed that right in a factual setting so closely analogous to that presented in the case at bench that we find its analysis and holding applicable here.
Luttenberger dealt with an affidavit in which the officer had stated that the informant was reliable but had given no details about the informant's background or reliability.fn. 6 Defendant did not allege that the affidavit was facially insufficient, and he did not seek disclosure of the informant's identity; instead he mounted a "'sub-facial'" challenge. Before the preliminary hearing the defendant invoked the procedures established in People v. Rivas (1985) 170 Cal. App. 3d 312 [216 Cal. Rptr. 477], asking for in camera review of information about the informant's background and reliability. ( People v. [219 Cal. App. 3d 1293] Luttenberger, supra, 50 Cal.3d at pp. 7-8.)fn. 7 The magistrate denied the motion; the superior court granted a section 995 motion and dismissed the information because of the magistrate's failure to conduct an in camera hearing. The Court of Appeal affirmed. ( Id., at p. 8.) The Supreme Court reversed.
The Supreme Court began with a discussion of the relationship between Franks, Rivas, and article I, section 28, subdivision (d), of the California Constitution (part of Prop. 8). Resolving conflict among Court of Appeal decisions, the court held that California and not federal law governs criminal discovery. ( People v. Luttenberger, supra, 50 Cal.3d at pp. 9-17.) The court then decided what the California law governing criminal discovery would be.
Speaking for the court, Chief Justice Lucas reiterated earlier statements that a criminal defendant's right to discovery is based on the fundamental proposition that the accused is entitled to a fair trial and an intelligent defense in light of all relevant and reasonably accessible information. ( People v. Luttenberger, supra, 50 Cal.3d at p. 17.) "Permitting a defendant limited but reasonable access to information relevant to evaluating the validity of a search warrant appears consistent with this basic principle. [Citation.]" (Ibid.) In fashioning a "limited but reasonable" rule, the court turned to Franks and Rivas, found that their rules did not conflict, and drew from both.
Although the Luttenberger decision did not deal with a "sealed" affidavit per se, the facts of that case and the facts of the case at bench both gave rise to the necessity of resolving essentially the same set of conflicting interests. In fact, appellant's counsel squarely and repeatedly raised the Luttenberger issue below. First, he made a motion before the magistrate who issued the warrant to unseal the affidavit. He argued that the portions of the affidavit which provide probable cause should not be sealed and that otherwise "the due process right of the defendant, under Franks v. Delaware, to attack misstatements or omissions in the warrant, those are now gone if this procedure is allowed to prevail." The court and both counsel then explored the conflict between the defendant's right to test the validity of the warrant [219 Cal. App. 3d 1297] and the state's interest in protecting informants. Ultimately the magistrate ruled that in this case disclosure of the affidavit would necessarily reveal the identity of the informant and that therefore disclosure would be denied.
Defense counsel renewed the issue in his section 995 motion, arguing that sealing of the affidavit deprived him of his rights under Franks. After argument at the hearing, the court took the motion under submission, read the sealed affidavit in camera, and denied the motion without a statement of reasons.
Appellant raised the issue a third time in a section 1538.5 motion in which he argued that the warrant had issued without probable cause. Counsel's argument stressed a different point. The court denied the suppression motion, which it called "a motion to disclose more than anything else." Appellant's change of plea followed.
Luttenberger held that a defendant who has direct access to a complete search warrant affidavit and who can use the knowledge obtained from reading it to raise a reasonable doubt about its veracity has the right to discovery of information which may help mount an attack on that affidavit and warrant. ( People v. Luttenberger, supra, 50 Cal.3d at pp. 6-25.) Flannery and Swanson held that an affidavit may be sealed to the extent necessary to protect the public interest in the confidentiality of the informant's identity. (Swanson v. Superior Court, supra, 211 Cal.App.3d at p. 339; People v. Flannery, supra, 164 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1115-1121.) It follows from the latter rule that a sealing of virtually all of an affidavit, as occurred in the case at bench, is permissible if the necessity requirement is met. The question of how much may be sealed simply is one of degree.
It cannot be the case, however, that the rule of Flannery and Swanson abrogates the rights so carefully delineated by the Supreme Court in Luttenberger, in which the court repeatedly stressed the need to protect defendants from the possibilities of perjury and fabricated informants. ( People v. Luttenberger, supra, 50 Cal.3d at p. 18.) In fact, as defense counsel urged below, the protections later secured in Luttenberger are particularly critical where a portion, or all, of the affidavit is sealed. If defendants' Luttenberger rights were not carefully preserved in cases such as this, the Luttenberger holding could be eviscerated by the simple expedient of sealing all or part of the affidavit in support of the warrant in every case.
We are aware that the procedure mandated by our holding may be viewed as placing an additional burden on the trial courts. We can only observe that the burden necessarily follows from the use of sealed affidavits, which, though permissible, cannot in reason be allowed to eliminate the rights so recently and clearly set out by our Supreme Court in Luttenberger. We note that law enforcement officials have control over their own investigations. They may wish to avoid imposing the arguably burdensome procedure on the trial courts by managing their investigations in a way that reduces or eliminates the need for sealed affidavits.
Insofar as use of sealed affidavits is unavoidable, it is not unusual or inappropriate for the "burden" of protecting citizens' rights to fall upon our judiciary, and trial courts, as always, retain broad discretion in weighing the government's interests against defendants' rights.
Our examination of the record before us in light of the above controlling principles compels us to find that neither the magistrate at the time of issuance of the warrant nor the trial courts upon the section 995 and 1538.5 motions sufficiently tested the sealed affidavit in camera. Accordingly, the [219 Cal. App. 3d 1299] trial court erred in denying the section 1538.5 motion, and the judgment must be reversed.
 Appellant claims that execution of the search warrant seven days after it was issued rendered the information untimely and the warrant invalid. We agree with the People that section 1534, subdivision (a), is controlling. It provides that if a search warrant is executed and returned within 10 days, it is deemed to have been timely executed, and no further showing of timeliness need be made. That is what occurred here, and appellant's arguments to the contrary are speculative and must be rejected.
The judgment is reversed, and appellant's guilty plea is vacated. The cause is remanded to the trial court with directions either to dismiss the action or to proceed in accordance with this opinion.
If the case proceeds, appellant shall be permitted to renew his section 1538.5 motion. The court shall then hold an in camera hearing to determine first whether the affidavit is properly sealed; if portions of it are not, the court should unseal them. Second, the court shall examine the affidavit for possible inconsistencies, inform the prosecution of what materials it requires (including police reports and other information on the informant, the intermediary, and on the reliability of each of them), and call for questioning, as the court deems necessary and appropriate, the affiant, the informant, the intermediary, and/or other witnesses. After this in camera proceeding, if the court determines that there is no basis for appellant's attacking the veracity of the affidavit, the court should report that conclusion to appellant and deny the motion. If, on the other hand, the information adduced in camera tends to contradict material representations in the affidavit or constitutes material omissions from it, the court should order disclosure of the documents to the defendant, carefully excising any information which might reveal the informant's identity but preserving the [219 Cal. App. 3d 1300] excised portions for possible appellate review.fn. 10 The section 1538.5 motion will then proceed to decision with the benefit of this additional evidence. White, P. J., and Merrill, J., concurred.
FN 1. Unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
FN 4. Appellant does not contend that the informant is a material witness, and our reading of the sealed affidavit confirms that no material witness was involved.
FN 6. It will be recalled that the unsealed portion of the affidavit here did not represent that the informant was reliable. It said, in relevant part, "Within the last seven days, a Confidential Informant hereafter referred to as a CI, told me of a man named William Seibel who sold cocaine. CI purchased an amount of cocaine from William Seibel (please read sealed portion now)."
FN 9. Section 1526, subdivision (a), provides in pertinent part: "The magistrate may, before issuing the warrant, examine on oath the person seeking the warrant and any witnesses he [or she] may produce ...."

References: § 1042
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1040
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.