Opinion ID: 844235
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Factual Omissions in the Search Warrants

Text: Defendant next contends the warrants should have been traversed because the affidavit for the first warrant omitted relevant facts regarding the extensive prior contacts between the sheriff's department and [defendant], including the call to which Deputy Deese had responded earlier that day, and the affidavit for the second warrant additionally omitted relevant information about the prior search conducted pursuant to the first warrant and the extensive history of prior contacts between [defendant] and the sheriff's department. (5) A defendant can challenge a search warrant by showing that the affiant deliberately or recklessly omitted material facts that negate probable cause when added to the affidavit. ( Franks v. Delaware (1978) 438 U.S. 154, 171-172 [57 L.Ed.2d 667, 98 S.Ct. 2674]; People v. Gibson (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 371, 381-382 [108 Cal.Rptr.2d 809].) A defendant who challenges a search warrant based upon an affidavit containing omissions bears the burden of showing that the omissions were material to the determination of probable cause. [Citation.] `Pursuant to [California Constitution, article I,] section 28[, subdivision] (d), materiality is evaluated by the test of Illinois v. Gates (1983) 462 U.S. 213 [76 L.Ed.2d 527, 103 S.Ct. 2317], which looks to the totality of the circumstances in determining whether a warrant affidavit establishes good cause for a search. [Citation.]' [Citation.] ( People v. Bradford (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1229, 1297 [65 Cal.Rptr.2d 145, 939 P.2d 259].) The trial court concluded the omitted facts would not have had any effect on the issuance of either warrant. We agree with the trial court that the omitted facts were not material because there is no substantial possibility they would have altered a reasonable magistrate's probable cause determination, and their omission did not make the affidavit[s] substantially misleading.  ( People v. Kurland (1980) 28 Cal.3d 376, 385 [168 Cal.Rptr. 667, 618 P.2d 213].) As the trial court properly determined, even if the affidavits were tested by adding the omitted information, the magistrate still would have issued both warrants to search for items tending to show dominion and control, if only to rule out other suspects. Here, as in People v. Bradford, supra, 15 Cal.4th 1229, the magistrate did not err in finding that, considered as amended to include the above described information, the affidavit[s] established probable cause. ( Id. at p. 1299; see also People v. Huston (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 192, 219-220 [258 Cal.Rptr. 393].) [11] We conclude the trial court properly denied defendant's motion to quash the two warrants and suppress the items located during the searches authorized by them.