Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/3d/22/67.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 09:51:28+00:00

Document:
Carsel & Carsel and Richard A. Carsel for Defendant and Appellant.
Barry Tarlow, Robert C. Moest and Eric S. Multhaup as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.
D. Lowell Jensen, District Attorney (Alameda), John J. Meehan, Assistant District Attorney, and James M. Lee, Deputy District Attorney, as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Respondent.
That issue is now presented for decision. As will appear, we conclude that both the rationale of Theodor and the purposes of the constitutional guarantee of freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures compel the exclusion of evidence obtained pursuant to a warrant issued on an affidavit containing deliberately false statements of fact, regardless of the effect of those statements on probable cause. [2a] On an additional point, we conclude that the Constitution likewise requires exclusion of evidence seized under a warrant issued after the police conducted an illegal search to "confirm" their prior belief in probable cause.
On June 25, 1974, Detective Gregory of the San Luis Obispo Police Department appeared before a justice court judge and requested a warrant to search a single-family home rented and occupied by defendant. The principal allegations of Detective Gregory's accompanying affidavit were as follows: in February 1974 a federal narcotics agent requested Detective Gregory to investigate a company called Cen-Coast Scientific, which had placed an order with a Los Angeles pharmaceutical firm for certain chemicals commonly used in the manufacture of restricted dangerous drugs. The name appearing on the order was that of defendant. Detective Gregory learned that defendant had applied for a business license for Cen-Coast Scientific, stating its purpose to be the furnishing of biological supplies and equipment, and that defendant was a former chemistry major at California Polytechnic University. The investigation was dropped when defendant withdrew his order.
The affidavit further recited that on June 25, 1974, another federal narcotics agent advised Detective Gregory that Cen-Coast Scientific had placed an order with a San Leandro pharmaceutical firm for phenylacetic acid, also commonly used in manufacturing restricted dangerous drugs. On the same day Detective Gregory received a telephone call from H. E. Smith, manager of the rental units which included defendant's house. Smith told Detective Gregory that he went to defendant's house for the purpose of evicting him for nonpayment of rent; that defendant was not at home, and Smith entered with his passkey; that he smelled an unusual odor and heard the noise of a motor in a back room; that he entered such room and saw several large pieces of chemical apparatus, apparently operating, and a fan that was serving as a ventilator. Smith also told Detective Gregory that he saw a device which appeared to be a pill-making machine, as well as several guns.
The affidavit further alleged that Detective Gregory, together with Detective Osteyee of the San Luis Obispo Sheriff's office, went directly to [22 Cal. 3d 76] defendant's house and found the front door wide open with Smith inside. Through the open door the two officers saw the above-described chemical apparatus in plain view in the back room facing the entrance, and on a counter below the apparatus they saw bottles labeled with the following names: Ether, Acetone, Acetic Acid, Muriatic Acid, Benzylchloride Acid, Sodium Cyanide, and Monobromobenzine. The officers also smelled an unusual odor similar to a compound of ether, acetone, and stale urine. Finally, Detective Osteyee saw and seized a "roach" or partly consumed marijuana cigarette in plain sight on the floor, approximately 18 inches inside the front door.
The affidavit concluded by reciting that Detective Gregory thereafter consulted Charles Hall, a federal narcotics chemist, and described to him the apparatus and chemicals seen in defendant's house, the odor there detected, and the chemicals ordered by Cen-Coast Scientific. Hall advised him that the apparatus, chemicals, and odor are consistent with the manufacture of amphetamines, and gave as his opinion that defendant was operating an illicit laboratory on the premises for the production of restricted dangerous drugs.
Defendant moved to suppress the evidence on the ground that it was illegally obtained because the issuance of the warrant lacked probable cause and the search violated state and federal constitutional standards. (Pen. Code, § 1538.5, subd. (a)(2).) Defendant accompanied this motion with a sworn declaration by his counsel, charging that the affidavit of Detective Gregory contained numerous intentional misstatements and omissions. The declaration set forth defendant's proposed proof of such charges, and requested permission to controvert other factual allegations of the affidavit at the suppression hearing.
When that hearing took place, however, the prosecution objected to the taking of any testimony to support defendant's charges of perjury, contending that such evidence would be irrelevant because defendant's sole remedy was the Theodor procedure of asking the court to excise factual misstatements in the affidavit and test the remainder for probable [22 Cal. 3d 77] cause. The prosecution then offered, "for the sake of argument," to assume that defendant's charges of perjury were all true and to voluntarily excise the challenged portions of the affidavit.
Believing Theodor to be controlling, the court sustained the objection to testimony and accepted the prosecution's offer of excision. The court accordingly refused to allow defendant (1) to call Detective Gregory for cross-examination into the truth of his affidavit, (2) to call any witness to attack Detective Gregory's credibility, (3) to controvert any allegations of the affidavit not specifically questioned in the motion to suppress, and (4) to prove that material facts were deliberately omitted from the affidavit.
On the basis of the foregoing evidence the court ruled that the affidavit as excised was legally sufficient to support the issuance of the search warrant, and denied the motion to suppress.
Defendant thereafter pleaded guilty, the imposition of sentence was suspended, and he was placed on probation. He appeals from the [22 Cal. 3d 78] judgment (Pen. Code, § 1237, subd. 1), attacking only the legality of the search (Pen. Code, § 1538.5, subd. (m)).
Shortly after defendant's arrest counsel retained the services of Jack R. West, a state-licensed private investigator. West is retired from the Los Angeles Police Department after a 25-year career during which he served as investigator in virtually every major field of criminal activity. He holds a law degree, as well as state credentials to teach college-level courses in law enforcement. Prior to his employment by defendant he also served as investigator for the San Luis Obispo District Attorney. In the present case West conducted an extensive investigation totaling more than 300 hours into the circumstances surrounding the procurement of the search warrant.
1. Many of the allegations in Detective Gregory's affidavit were the product of information or observations obtained by police officers in the course of at least two illegal searches of defendant's residence prior to applying for the warrant. On at least one of these searches the officers were accompanied by Detective Gregory and Deputy District Attorney Robert King. It was King who subsequently drafted the affidavit sworn to by Detective Gregory. Both he and Detective Gregory thus knew that the affidavit (1) omitted to state the fact of the prior searches and (2) contained certain allegations which were absolutely false and others which were intentionally misleading.
3. The affidavit described in minute detail the shape and dimensions of each component of the chemical apparatus found by Smith, and implied that the latter furnished this description to the police. But Smith told West he did not have his glasses with him at the time and could not see very well, and that he gave no such measurements to the police.
4. Contrary to the affidavit, Smith saw no "pill-making machine" near the chemical apparatus or anywhere else in the house, for the simple reason that none was there. No such machine is mentioned in the police report or the list of evidence furnished to defendant pursuant to discovery, and chemist Hall testified to the grand jury in effect that it would have been very unusual to have found such a machine on the premises.
5. Despite the foregoing, the affidavit drafted by King and sworn to by Detective Gregory recited that "Your affiant was unable to observe the 'pill making machine' described by Mr. Smith due to its described location, and the vantage point had by your affiant at the front door." Yet because of their prior search both King and Gregory must have known that the true reason the latter could not see a pill-making machine was because none was in the house.
6. Contrary to the affidavit, the front door of defendant's house was not "fully opened" when Detectives Gregory and Osteyee arrived. Smith so advised West, and added that he was standing in the doorway at the time.
7. Contrary to the affidavit, the two detectives could not have seen the chemical apparatus "in plain sight." On the basis of Smith's explanation of the circumstances, West conducted duplication tests and determined it would have been impossible for anyone standing outside defendant's front door to have a "plain sight" view of the apparatus and chemicals in the back room of the house.
9. In addition, after a vector analysis based on police reports and the prosecution's photographs of the scene, West found that the bottle of sodium cyanide, in particular, had been in such a position that no one could have seen it from the front door under any circumstances.
10. Contrary to the affidavit, Detective Osteyee did not observe a "roach" on the floor approximately 18 inches inside the front door. Smith flatly denied this claim, and explained instead that Detective Osteyee directed him to look through defendant's house and bring out any suspected marijuana. Smith complied, went to an interior room invisible to anyone standing at the front door, and brought the "roach" in question back to the two detectives. He then placed the "roach" on a plate on a kitchen shelf adjacent to the front door. In corroboration of this statement, West viewed films of defendant's house made by a local television station at the time the search warrant was executed; the films show that the plate holding the marijuana was located on the kitchen shelf where Smith said he had put it after showing it to the two detectives.
Defendant contends at length that under Theodor the trial court's refusal to allow him to put on his proof of these assertions deprived him of his statutory right to controvert the grounds of the warrant (Pen. Code, §§ 1538.5, subd. (c), 1539, subd. (a)) and of due process of law.
The foregoing reasoning derives from Theodor, however, and can confidently be applied only to misstatements governed by the express holding of that decision, i.e., those resulting from negligent mistakes. As noted at the outset, we expressly declined in Theodor to reach the question whether the use of intentional misstatements in the affidavit "should result in automatically quashing the warrant without regard to the effect of those misstatements on probable cause" (8 Cal.3d at p. 101, fn. 14). If the answer to that question is in the affirmative, as defendant also contends, he should have been permitted to prove his charges at the suppression hearing and will be entitled to an opportunity to do so on remand. We turn to that underlying issue.
Having recognized the defendant's right to disprove factual averments of the affidavit, we then addressed the question of remedy in Theodor. Without hesitation we applied an exclusionary rule and held that offending misstatements must be "excised" from the affidavit. Although we did not articulate our reason for so holding, we did discuss at length the question of which kinds of misstatements -- innocent, negligent, or intentional -- will be excised (8 Cal.3d at pp. 95-101); and from that discussion it plainly emerges that our decision to excise was based on constitutional considerations.
The negative implication, of course, is that "more can be required" of an affiant who makes "unreasonable" -- i.e., negligent or intentional -- misstatements: in such a case exclusion does serve the "purpose of [22 Cal. 3d 83] deterrence to unlawful conduct," because it induces the affiant to thereafter make "a reasonable attempt to comply with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment."
To declare that constitutional considerations require an exclusionary rule to operate in these circumstances, however, is not to determine the scope of that rule.  In the case of a warrantless search violative of the Constitution, it is settled that the exclusionary rule bars admission of the evidence directly obtained therefrom (People v. Cahan (1955) 44 Cal. 2d 434, 445 [282 P.2d 905, 50 A.L.R.2d 513]; Mapp v. Ohio (1961) 367 U.S. 643, 656 [6 L. Ed. 2d 1081, 1090-1091, 81 S. Ct. 1684, 84 A.L.R.2d 933]) and any additional evidence derived by use of that primary evidence (People v. Berger (1955) 44 Cal. 2d 459, 462 [282 P.2d 509]; Wong Sun v. United States (1963) 371 U.S. 471, 487-488 [9 L. Ed. 2d 441, 455-456, 83 S.Ct. 407]). As will appear (part V, post), the same result generally follows from a search which is conducted under color of a warrant but is constitutionally unreasonable on other grounds: the evidence directly or indirectly obtained in such a search must be excluded.
By parity of reasoning we could have held in Theodor that when the warrant is issued on an affidavit containing erroneous statements of fact which the affiant has no reasonable grounds for believing to be true, the exclusionary rule should operate in its normal fashion, i.e., the warrant should be quashed and the evidence obtained in the ensuing search should be held inadmissible. But we did not do so. Rather, we declared (8 Cal.3d at p. 101, fn. 14) that "We do not hold that the presence in an affidavit of inaccurate facts caused by unreasonable police activity automatically vitiates the warrant. We require only that such information be deleted and the warrant's validity be tested by the remaining accurate information. The warrant will not be quashed if that remaining information is sufficient, under settled standards, to constitute probable cause for the search." In effect, we applied the exclusionary rule not to the evidence produced by the warrant but to the misstatements in the affidavit leading to its issuance.
Accordingly, when the magistrate issues a warrant the reviewing court must presume in the first instance that he found the affiant correctly believed in the truth of each of the factual allegations of the affidavit. If it is thereafter shown that the affiant was negligently mistaken in certain of his allegations, they must be excised from the affidavit on the constitutional grounds recognized in Theodor. But the remainder of the allegations [22 Cal. 3d 85] are untouched by the mistake, and under the foregoing distribution of the factfinding power the reviewing court should accept them as true.
To exclude the unaffected allegations, moreover, would serve no constitutional purpose. A court admittedly engages in a fiction when, after excising negligent misstatements in an affidavit, it tests the remainder for probable cause: in so doing it in effect turns back the clock, puts itself in the magistrate's position, and asks whether the magistrate would have issued the warrant if the affidavit presented to him had contained only the remaining allegations. Yet because those allegations are presumptively true, it does not increase the risk of invading innocent privacy for the court to rely on them in reviewing the final step in the magistrate's function, i.e., in determining whether his conclusion of probable cause rested on a sufficient factual foundation.
[1b] In the case at bar, however, it is alleged that the misstatements in the affidavit were not merely negligent, but intentional. Defense counsel's declaration takes issue principally with the sworn statements of Detective Gregory that (1) Smith saw a pill-making machine in defendant's house, (2) when the officers arrived on the scene the front door was wide open and the chemical apparatus was "in plain sight," (3) the officers could read the labels on the chemical bottles from their vantage point outside the front door, and (4) Detective Osteyee saw and seized a "roach" on the floor 18 inches inside the room. It is vigorously asserted that each of the foregoing statements is false, and that Detective Gregory knew they were false at the time he made them under oath.
These are grave imputations of official misconduct: as the trial court acknowledged to defense counsel, "You have made some very serious charges against the District Attorney and his people and the police." If true, the charges mean at least that the deputy district attorney who drafted the affidavit grossly abused his authority, and that the police officer who swore to the veracity of its allegations -- assuming for present purposes they constituted "material matter" within the meaning of Penal Code section 118 -- committed perjury. "Perjury is a powerful word, but it must be recognized that no other will suffice." (Grano, A Dilemma for Defense Counsel: Spinelli-Harris Search Warrants and the Possibility of Police Perjury (1971) U.Ill.L.F. 405, 408.) fn. 7 The issue is whether the [22 Cal. 3d 86] rationale of our decision in Theodor not to quash the warrant applies on a showing of such perjury.
Contrary to the case of negligent mistakes, excision of deliberate falsehoods in an affidavit does not leave the remaining allegations unaffected and hence presumptively true. The fact that the misstatements are intentional injects a new element into the analysis, to wit, the doctrine that a witness knowingly false in one part of his testimony is to be distrusted in the whole. Encapsulated in the common law maxim "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus," long codified in our statutes (former Code Civ. Proc., § 2061, subd. 3), and given as a basic instruction in virtually every jury trial (CALJIC No. 1.30), fn. 8 the doctrine is deeply rooted in California civil and criminal law. (See, e.g., People v. Strong (1866) 30 Cal. 151, 155-156; People v. Soto (1881) 59 Cal. 367; Estate of Friedman (1918) 178 Cal. 27, 32 [172 P. 140]; Nelson v. Black (1954) 43 Cal. 2d 612, 613 [275 P.2d 473]; Florez v. Groom Development Co. (1959) 53 Cal. 2d 347, 356 [1 Cal. Rptr. 840, 348 P.2d 200].) No reason appears why it should not apply to sworn statements in an affidavit for a warrant as well as in trial testimony.
We conclude that the trial court erred in denying defendant the opportunity to prove that the affidavit for the search warrant contained knowingly false statements of fact. Because defendant will be entitled to litigate that issue on remand, we briefly address the procedure that will govern the hearing.
[8a] The reasoning is no longer appropriate, however, when the defendant charges that the misstatements were deliberate, i.e., that the affiant knew they were false at the time he made them. There are no special "circumstances" bearing on the issue that are known to the affiant alone, and he is no better placed to disprove his alleged perjury than the defendant is to prove it. There is accordingly no reason to deviate from normal rules in this matter, and the defendant should retain both the burden of producing evidence of the affiant's knowledge of falsity (Evid. Code, § 550) and the ultimate burden of proof on that issue (Evid. Code, § 500).
In the case at bar, for example, defense counsel's declaration offers such proof in the form of the experiment of the investigator West demonstrating that it would have been impossible for anyone to read the labels on the chemical bottles from outside defendant's front door, as the affiant claimed. Of course, if the defendant has any direct evidence in the form of testimony of percipient witnesses contrary to that of the affiant -- as here, the testimony of the manager Smith summarized in counsel's declaration -- it too is admissible and the conflict will be for the trier of fact to resolve.
The rule is particularly appropriate in the present context. Proof that a sworn allegation in an affidavit for a search warrant was both false and made with reckless disregard for the truth surely negates any claim of a bona fide but negligent mistake within the meaning of Theodor, and renders the entire affidavit as untrustworthy as if the affiant had knowingly lied: "law enforcement agents presenting evidence to magistrates could make a mockery of the magistrate's role if, in the necessarily ex parte proceeding, they could freely employ false allegations in order to secure the warrant. The same could likewise be true if the agents could, with impunity, draft affidavits with utter recklessness as to truth or falsity. In either instance there would be a lack of good faith in the performance of the agent's duty to the judicial officer." (United States v. Luna (6th Cir. 1975) 525 F.2d 4, 8; accord, Franks v. Delaware (1978) supra, 438 U.S. 154.) For the reasons given above (part III, ante), application of the exclusionary sanction to evidence obtained by such means is both necessary and effective.
Finally, the defendant is not limited to proving the falsity of only the particular allegations he challenged in his prima facie showing. In making that showing by declaration in the case at bar defendant recited that he "specifically reserves the right to challenge any other allegation of said affidavit, at the time of the hearing of this motion, based upon the possibility (nay, probability) that additional evidence of falsity or inaccuracy will become known to Defendant and the Court at or before the time of hearing." Even without such a reservation the challenge is permissible; to hold otherwise would frustrate the purposes of Theodor and the rule we declare herein. Much of the information in an affidavit for a search warrant is either hearsay or is derived from anonymous and confidential sources. In most instances it would be difficult if not impossible for the defendant to discover in advance of the hearing each and every allegation that he can ultimately prove false. Yet once he has shown that certain allegations were knowingly untrue, the integrity of the entire affidavit is cast into doubt. We do not hereby sanction a routine "fishing expedition" in cases involving a search warrant; but if, as here, the defendant's preliminary investigation discloses specific facts which would lead a reasonable man to suspect that one or more of the allegations in the affidavit were perjurious, he is entitled to inquire at the hearing into the truth of the remaining allegations.
We did not pursue the matter in Theodor because no such omissions were alleged. In three subsequent decisions of the Court of Appeal the issue was addressed in the context of a challenge to search warrant affidavits on the ground that omissions therein undermined the magistrate's determination that an informant was reliable. (People v. Neusom (1977) 76 Cal. App. 3d 534 [143 Cal. Rptr. 27]; Morris v. Superior Court (1976) 57 Cal. App. 3d 521 [129 Cal. Rptr. 238]; People v. Barger (1974) 40 Cal. App. 3d 662 [115 Cal. Rptr. 298].) We take no position on the particular question addressed in those decisions, as it is not presently before us. Defendant does not attack the veracity of Smith, the [22 Cal. 3d 93] citizen-informant herein; on the contrary, he relies on Smith for much of his proposed testimony contradictory of the affidavit.
Nor is any issue raised by defendant's specific claims of omission: he charges, for example, that Detective Gregory failed to recite in his affidavit that the front door of defendant's house was not "fully opened" when the police arrived, the chemical apparatus was not "in plain sight," and the "roach" was not visible on the floor but was brought to the door by Smith. These "omissions," however, are simply negative restatements of positive assertions already attacked by defendant as erroneous. When it is shown that an affiant falsely stated that fact X occurred, the defendant adds nothing to his case by complaining that the affiant "omitted" to state that fact X did not occur.
There remains defendant's charge that Detective Gregory deliberately omitted to tell the magistrate that he and Deputy District Attorney Robert King had conducted an unlawful "confirmatory" search of defendant's house before applying for the warrant. Upon close analysis, even this claim fails to present a true case of "omission" within the meaning of Theodor. Yet as will appear, the contention does entitle defendant to prove that the subsequent search and seizure of his property under color of the warrant were constitutionally unreasonable.
Nevertheless the defendant is not left without a remedy. Although he cannot complain of the omission of this fact from the affidavit, he retains the right to prove the fact itself -- i.e., that the "confirmatory" search took place as charged -- and to urge that it renders the evidence seized pursuant to the warrant inadmissible under general constitutional principles. There is no procedural bar to such proof: defendant filed a timely motion to suppress on grounds sufficient to include this claim, but was denied the opportunity to introduce his evidence thereof at the hearing.
When Sergeant Guevara arrived, the maid and the manager told him they believed there was marijuana in the defendant's room. With the manager's permission the officer entered the room, looked inside the cigarette package and the plastic bag, and examined the contents. He then put the items back on the nightstand as he had found them.
Later that day Sergeant Guevara prepared an affidavit for a search warrant. He related in detail the facts told to him by the maid, but omitted any reference to his warrantless entry and search. fn. 16 A warrant was issued on the strength of this affidavit, and the officer returned to the motel and seized the marijuana he had seen in the cigarette package. The defendant unsuccessfully moved to suppress the evidence on the ground of illegal search and seizure, then sought review by writ of mandate.
The case produced a deep division in this court. The majority of four justices conceded that the defendant had not impliedly consented to motel employees' allowing the police to search his room for contraband, and hence that Sergeant Guevara's warrantless entry for that purpose was illegal. (5 Cal.3d at p. 422.) But the majority nevertheless denied relief. The opinion reasoned, "Before that entry Sergeant Guevara had lawfully acquired information from the motel employees that was sufficient to support the issuance of a search warrant. It was not unlawful for him to use that information to obtain the warrant. The magistrate's independent decision to issue the warrant was in no way tainted by the officer's illegal personal observations, for the magistrate was wholly unaware of such observations." (Id., at pp. 422-423.) The majority concluded that the marijuana seized pursuant to the warrant was not the product of exploitation of the illegality within the meaning of the Wong Sun rule, and hence was admissible.
In retrospect, a simpler and more pragmatic approach would better serve the purposes of the constitutional guarantee of the right of the people to be secure in their houses against "unreasonable" searches and seizures.  It is now settled that such a search is "unreasonable" if it is conducted without a warrant: "warrantless searches of a private dwelling are unreasonable per se in the absence of one of a small number of carefully circumscribed exceptions ...." (People v. Ramey (1976) 16 Cal. 3d 263, 270 [127 Cal. Rptr. 629, 545 P.2d 1333]; see generally United States v. United States District Court (1972) 407 U.S. 297, 315-318 [32 L. Ed. 2d 752, 765-767, 92 S. Ct. 2125]; Coolidge v. New Hampshire (1971) 403 U.S. 443, 474-484 [29 L. Ed. 2d 564, 587-594, 91 S. Ct. 2022]; Katz v. United States (1967) 389 U.S. 347, 356-357 [19 L. Ed. 2d 576, 585, 88 S. Ct. 507]; People v. Dumas (1973) supra, 9 Cal. 3d 871, 879-880; People v. Smith (1972) 7 Cal. 3d 282, 285-286 [101 Cal. Rptr. 893, 496 P.2d 1261].) But the converse is not true: a search conducted under color of a warrant is not "reasonable per se," but may be unreasonable in the constitutional sense on a number of grounds.
 Even if the warrant is legally sufficient in the foregoing respects, the search is also unreasonable when the warrant is executed in an improper manner. This result will follow, for example, when the warrant is served in the nighttime without specific authorization to do so (Rogers v. Superior Court (1973) 35 Cal. App. 3d 716, 719-720 [111 Cal. Rptr. 9]; Powelson v. Superior Court (1970) 9 Cal. App. 3d 357, 362-364 [88 Cal. Rptr. 8]; Call v. Superior Court (1968) 266 Cal. App. 2d 163 [71 Cal. Rptr. 546]; People v. Mills (1967) 251 Cal. App. 2d 420 [59 Cal. Rptr. 489]; Pen. Code, §§ 1529, 1533), or when the police forcibly enter the premises without a timely and adequate announcement of their authority and purpose (Parsley v. Superior Court (1973) 9 Cal. 3d 934, 938-940 [109 Cal. Rptr. 563, 513 P.2d 611]; People v. Hamilton (1969) 71 Cal. 2d 176, 178 [77 Cal. Rptr. 785, 454 P.2d 681]; People v. Benjamin (1969) 71 Cal. 2d 296, 298-299 [78 Cal. Rptr. 510, 455 P.2d 438]; People v. Gastelo (1967) 67 Cal. 2d 586 [63 Cal. Rptr. 10, 432 P.2d 706]; People v. Webb (1973) 36 Cal. App. 3d 460, 465-466 [111 Cal. Rptr. 524]; Pen. Code, § 1531).
 Finally, even if the warrant is both legally sufficient and properly served, the search is unreasonable when it is excessive in intensity or duration. This defect is apparent, for example, when the search exceeds the precise scope of the intrusion authorized by the warrant (People v. Bracamonte (1975) 15 Cal. 3d 394, 400-401 [124 Cal. Rptr. 528, 540 P.2d 624]), or when it results in the seizure of property which was not specifically described in the warrant and is unrelated to probable criminal activity (People v. Hill (1974) supra, 12 Cal. 3d 731, 762-764).
In each of these instances the police have gone through the motions of obtaining a warrant; yet because of a related act or omission by the officers, the ensuing search nevertheless increases the risk of invading innocent privacy and hence is constitutionally unreasonable. The search authorized by Krauss increases the same risk, albeit indirectly. After Krauss, a police officer need not rely solely on lawfully obtained probable cause; he can instead achieve "certain cause" by conducting an unlawful confirmatory search, thus saving himself the time and trouble of obtaining and executing a warrant if he does not find the evidence. He can safely engage in this conduct because Krauss teaches him that if the evidence does turn up in the course of the illegal search, he will still be allowed to seize it later in a second "search" under color of a warrant. The latter prospect thus gives him strong incentive to proceed with the warrantless entry. Yet every time he fails to find the suspected evidence, he has also invaded the privacy of a citizen innocent of any wrongdoing. The second "search" is therefore constitutionally unreasonable because it [22 Cal. 3d 99] significantly contributes to increasing the risk of such invasions of privacy.
[2c] Insofar as it holds to the contrary, Krauss is overruled. But the police will not thereby be deprived of any rights to which they are constitutionally entitled.  It has long been settled that an officer who believes he has probable cause to search a house must apply for a warrant rather than take the law into his own hands. (See, e.g., Johnson v. United States (1948) 333 U.S. 10, 14 [92 L. Ed. 436, 440-441, 68 S. Ct. 367].) If the "neutral and detached magistrate" (ibid.) concurs in the officer's belief, the warrant will issue; but if he does not, the proper course is for the officer to renew his investigation and lawfully develop additional facts which will support an inference of probable cause. If he remains unable to do so, it is the Constitution itself which strikes the balance in favor of the citizen's right to privacy. (People v. Cahan (1955) supra, 44 Cal. 2d 434, 438-439, 449-450.) As Chief Justice Wright cogently observed in People v. Triggs (1973) supra, 8 Cal. 3d 884, 893, "In seeking to honor reasonable expectations of privacy through our application of search and seizure law, we must consider the expectations of the innocent as well as the guilty. When innocent people are subjected to illegal searches ... their rights are violated even though such searches turn up no evidence of guilt. Save through the deterrent effect of the exclusionary rule there is little courts can do to protect the constitutional right of persons innocent of any crime to be free of unreasonable searches."
The judgment (order granting probation) is reversed.
Bird, C. J., Tobriner, J., Manuel, J., and Newman, J., concurred.
I concur in the judgment. Substantial, material mistruths of the nature herein alleged justify the quashing of the search warrant without regard to whether the remaining allegations contained in the affidavit are sufficient to demonstrate probable cause.
However, I do not believe that every intentional misstatement in an affidavit should so fatally infect the remaining allegations as to render invalid the search warrant in its entirety. No deliberate falsehoods can ever be condoned, but where they occur in the law enforcement process and pertain to insubstantial, immaterial, or wholly collateral matters and do not raise reasonable doubt as to the truth of the remainder of the affiant's assertions, I would not punish the People by invalidating the warrant; rather, I would leave to criminal sanction or to appropriate internal law enforcement administration the necessary discipline for those who have intentionally falsified.
In my view this position is too extreme. I would forego application of such a strict per se treatment in favor of a rule of reason, at least as to mistruths regarding collateral matters which are not pertinent to the issue of probable cause.
The fundamental question presented is, of course, whether evidence obtained pursuant to a warrant issued in reliance on an affidavit containing deliberately false statements of [22 Cal. 3d 101] fact -- lies -- must be excluded, regardless of the effect of those lies on probable cause.
A possible objection to this proposal is that reweighing credibility is the one thing a reviewing court has no business doing. The answer to this objection is, of course, that reweighing credibility is the very endeavor upon which the superior court embarks in conducting a Theodor hearing into the question whether the affiant lied in making the challenged allegations. Having the affiant before it, having determined that certain of his allegations were lies, and having parties before it interested in [22 Cal. 3d 102] attacking or supporting his credibility as to the remaining allegations, the superior court is clearly in a better position than was the magistrate to assess credibility and then, depending upon that assessment, to determine probable cause.
Another objection, raised by the majority (ante, pp. 87-88), is that automatic exclusion of evidence obtained under the warrant is the only effective means of deterring lying in an affidavit in support of a search warrant. However, a police officer found by the superior court to have not merely "blundered" but to have deliberately lied under oath in preparing a search warrant affidavit is clearly subject to prosecution for perjury (ante, pp. 87-88) and to administrative discipline commensurate with the extreme gravity of his misconduct. Surely it is obvious that an officer contemplating perjury is much more likely to be deterred by a sanction penalizing him personally, possibly resulting in imprisonment and the end of his career, than by a sanction indiscriminately penalizing all law-abiding citizens by letting a criminal go free.
I would reverse the judgment and remand the case for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
"4. Business license -- biological supplies and equipment.
(b) Osteyee smells odor of acetone, ether, or stale urine."
Item 5(d), which had referred to the alleged pillmaking machine, was included through oversight and was deleted by the deputy district attorney. With respect to item 5(e), we note that in testifying before the grand jury Detective Gregory conceded the guns in defendant's residence were lawfully possessed.
FN 2. Hall based his opinion on only three of these facts: the orders of phenylacetic acid, the odor of stale urine, and the location in a private home. Indeed, under questioning by the court he stated the latter fact was not essential to his opinion and would merely "strengthen" it.
FN 3. This does not mean that at the hearing the defendant is also foreclosed from attacking allegations of the affidavit other than those specifically challenged in his declaration or motion. We hold to the contrary below. (Part IV, post.) All we say here is that if the defendant charges that any particular allegation is negligently inaccurate and the prosecution concedes the claim, the defendant cannot insist on putting on evidence to prove it.
FN 4. In Theodor the phrase "Fourth Amendment" was used for convenience to refer to both the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the similar provision of article I, section 13, of the California Constitution. (See, e.g., People v. Triggs (1973) 8 Cal. 3d 884, 891-892, fn. 5 [106 Cal. Rptr. 408, 506 P.2d 232].) As will appear, the decision herein is based solely on the latter provision.
FN 5. A recent author restates the argument somewhat more broadly: "it makes utterly no sense to ask only whether the magistrate drew a reasonable inference without asking whether the information from which he drew the inference was acquired carelessly or transmitted inaccurately. Probable cause and its process are a whole. If any part is defective, if any functionary performs improperly, the whole fails, thereby increasing the risk of invading innocent privacy and subverting the fourth amendment's primary value." (Fn. omitted.) (Herman, Warrants for Arrest or Search: Impeaching the Allegations of a Facially Sufficient Affidavit (1975) 36 Ohio St. L.J. 721, 740.) The article presents a lucid analysis of many aspects of the question before us.
FN 8. The instruction states in relevant part: "A witness false in one part of his testimony is to be distrusted in others; that is to say, you may reject the whole testimony of a witness who wilfully has testified falsely as to a material point, unless, from all the evidence, you shall believe that the probability of truth favors his testimony in other particulars."
FN 10. At this late date we need not pause to refute the Attorney General's claim that a sufficient deterrent effect arises from the theoretical possibility of prosecuting the affiant for the offense of perjury. The inadequacy of criminal sanctions against the police is one of the foundations of Cahan, Mapp, and their many progeny. Even leading critics of the exclusionary rule no longer propose such sanctions as a viable alternative. (See, e.g., Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents (1971) 403 U.S. 388, 420-424 [29 L. Ed. 2d 619, 640-643, 91 S. Ct. 1999] (dis. opn. of Burger, C.J.); Stone v. Powell (1977) 428 U.S. 465, 496 [49 L. Ed. 2d 1067, 1088-1089, 96 S. Ct. 3037] (same).) In the case at bar, for example, it would be unrealistic to anticipate that Detective Gregory might be prosecuted by the district attorney whose deputy joined him in the prior illegal search and drafted the very affidavit now under attack.
FN 12. It does not appear from the face of the Franks opinion that the reasoning we here find persuasive was considered by the high court.
FN 16. Although the Krauss opinion does not so recite in its statement of facts, its subsequent analysis is premised on the assumption that Sergeant Guevara also omitted any facts learned by him in the course of his search and not already communicated to him by the maid and the manager.
FN 17. We note the deputy district attorney asserted that his entry was merely "in part" for the purpose of confirming the landlord's observations; because he declined to reveal his other motives, we can only infer they were even more improper.
We further note that the quoted language of King created a factual conflict on the question whether allegations of the affidavit were the product of observations made during the prior search of defendant's house: defendant charged they were, while King denied it. Long before Krauss it was deemed settled that a search warrant is invalid if it is the product of observations of the police during a previous illegal entry. (People v. Roberts (1956) supra, 47 Cal. 2d 374, 377; accord, People v. Carswell (1959) 51 Cal. 2d 602, 606-607 [335 P.2d 99]; Lohman v. Superior Court (1977) 69 Cal. App. 3d 894, 898 [138 Cal. Rptr. 403]; Raymond v. Superior Court (1971) 19 Cal. App. 3d 321, 326-327 [96 Cal. Rptr. 678]; People v. Superior Court (Flynn) (1969) 275 Cal. App. 2d 489, 492 [79 Cal. Rptr. 904].) We could therefore return the case to the trier of fact with directions to resolve this conflict and apply the Roberts rule if defendant is found to be correct. But such a disposition would mean that Krauss should control if King is correct, and would accordingly imply our continued approval of that decision. For the reasons that follow, we decline to express such approval.
In view of the disposition herein, we need not reach defendant's additional contention relating to his motion to withdraw a challenge to the assigned trial judge pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6.
FN 2. Consider the spot the district attorney, an elected official, would be in. The superior court, having found that the officer lied under oath, would expect prosecution to follow. The defense bar would blow the whistle on any dereliction of duty. "Investigative reporters" and organized groups of interested citizens would make the political price of such dereliction too costly.

References: § 1538
 § 1237
 § 1538
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2061
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 550
 § 500
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1531
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.