Opinion ID: 2509294
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Challenge to Search Warrant

Text: Defendant contends the search warrant issued for his apartment should have been quashed because the affiant, Detective Price, omitted material information and included false information. [27] The trial court found that the affiant had not included statements that were either false or made in reckless disregard of the truth and that none of the information defendant claimed had been omitted from the affidavit was material to probable cause. The information defendant claims was omitted included any mention of the prior entries into his apartment, that Officer Barnes had spoken to defendant and his mother, and that Mr. Seihoon was the last person seen talking to Nicole. Defendant contended further that the affiant erroneously stated that Nicole lived in the same apartment complex as defendant, inaccurately reported certain statements made by defendant to police, and failed to report defendant's deplorable condition at the hospital when the statements were made. We agree with the trial court that these omissions were immaterial to probable cause. Defendant also argues the search warrant should have been quashed because it was based, in part, on the prior illegal warrantless searches of defendant's residence and vehicle and on statements obtained in violation of Miranda. We have, however, rejected his challenges to the warrantless entries into his residence and vehicle and his Miranda claims. Our conclusions in this respect eliminate the predicate of his challenge to the search warrant on this ground. To the extent that defendant is advancing a Franks claim ( Franks v. Delaware, supra, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667), he fails to make the required showings either that the affidavit contains statements that are deliberately false or were made in reckless disregard of the truth or that, even had the allegedly false statements been excised, the remaining contents of the affidavit would have been insufficient to support a finding of probable cause. ( Id. at pp. 155-156, 98 S.Ct. 2674.) We conclude that the trial court properly denied his motion to quash the search warrant.