Opinion ID: 769576
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Legality of the Search Warrant

Text: 43 A magistrate's issuance of a search warrant is reviewed for clear error and we must uphold such a warrant so long as the [magistrate] had a `substantial basis' for concluding probable cause existed based on the totality of the circumstances. Bertrand, 926 F.2d at 841 (citation omitted). In analyzing the magistrate's decision, however, we must excise the portion of the affidavit in support of the warrant application containing information that was obtained during the illegal fourth search. See United States v. Reed, 15 F.3d 928, 933 (9th Cir. 1994) (A reviewing court should excise the tainted evidence and determine whether the remaining untainted evidence would provide a neutral magistrate with probable cause to issue a warrant.) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 44 After excising Investigator Reynolds' observations, the warrant application shows that Officers Yergler and Wasinger: (1) smelled a strong chemical odor outside of Apartment 3 consistent with methamphetamine production; (2) were trained to know the smell of methamphetamine production; (3) have been present with the police narcotics unit in previous investigations of operational methamphetamine labs; (4) saw a large hydraulic press in Apartment 3; (5) saw a stainless steel pot on the apartment's kitchen floor, containing a brown chunky substance they believed was methamphetamine; and (6) witnessed the suspects flee Apartment 3. 45 Given the above facts, the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that there was probable cause to believe that contraband or evidence of a crime would be found in Apartment 3. Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying Cervantes' motion to suppress evidence.