Opinion ID: 1450795
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: 3. The affidavits supplied probable cause to support the warrant authorizing the search of defendant's residence.

Text: The magistrate's conclusion that probable cause supported the suspicion that cocaine would be found in defendant's Claremont hills residence rests on the statements by Martin to an undercover officer in Santa Barbara and on the statements by Phillips after he was arrested for sale of cocaine. Defendant urges the insufficiency of the affidavits because they fail to present reasonable grounds for believing that Martin and Phillips were reliable informants. (See Aguilar v. Texas (1964) 378 U.S. 108, 114 [12 L.Ed.2d 723, 728-729, 84 S.Ct. 1509]; People v. Scoma (1969) 71 Cal.2d 332, 338 [78 Cal. Rptr. 491, 455 P.2d 419].) Although the reliability of Phillip's statements may be questioned, Martin's statements must be presumed reliable since they were unwittingly made to an undercover police officer. As recognized in Ming v. Superior Court (1970) 13 Cal. App.3d 206 [91 Cal. Rptr. 477], utterances by a suspected accomplice can be presumed to be reliable in these circumstances since they were not made for the selfish purpose of currying favor with law enforcement to mitigate the punishment of [the individual's] own criminal acts, or with the ulterior motive of causing the arrest of the petitioner upon a false accusation. (13 Cal. App.3d at p. 214.) Consequently, since Martin spoke from personal knowledge of defendant's identity and activities and his information that defendant resided in the Claremont hills was corroborated by both Phillips and Pastor, a reasonable magistrate could conclude that evidence connecting defendant with the conspiracy to sell cocaine could be located in his home. For the foregoing reasons we conclude that the Santa Barbara County magistrate had jurisdiction to issue a warrant for the search of defendant's residence in the Claremont hills, that probable cause supported the warrant, and that the search was therefore valid. The judgment is affirmed.