Opinion ID: 1391800
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: What facts must affiant include?

Text: Though similar for many purposes, omissions and misstatements analytically are distinct in important ways. Every falsehood makes an affidavit inaccurate, but not all omissions do so. (3) An affidavit need not disclose every imaginable fact however irrelevant. It need only furnish the magistrate with information, favorable and adverse, sufficient to permit a reasonable, common sense determination whether circumstances which justify a search are probably present. (See United States v. Harris (1971) 403 U.S. 573, 577-585 [29 L.Ed.2d 723, 730, 91 S.Ct. 2075]; Spinelli v. United States (1969) 393 U.S. 410, 419 [21 L.Ed.2d 637, 645, 89 S.Ct. 584]; United States v. Ventresca (1965) 380 U.S. 102, 108 [13 L.Ed.2d 684, 688-689, 85 S.Ct. 741]; People v. Stout (1967) 66 Cal.2d 184, 192-193 [57 Cal. Rptr. 152, 424 P.2d 704].) Recognizing this, the Courts of Appeal seem consistently to have held that an affiant's duty of disclosure extends only to material or relevant adverse facts. [3] At the same time, they have applied the materiality requirement to reach only those omissions which significantly distorted the probable cause analysis. (See Neusom, supra, 76 Cal. App.3d at p. 541; Morris, supra, 57 Cal. App.3d at p. 527; Barger, supra, 40 Cal. App.3d at pp. 668-669; Webb, supra, 36 Cal. App.3d at p. 470.) [4] We think the results reached by these decisions strike a proper balance among practicality, accuracy, and the policy of encouraging resort to the warrant process. (See Ventresca, supra, 380 U.S. at pp. 106, 108 [13 L.Ed.2d at pp. 687, 688-689]; People v. Keener (1961) 55 Cal.2d 714, 723 [12 Cal. Rptr. 859].) (4) We conclude, as Courts of Appeal effectively have concluded, that facts are material and hence must be disclosed if their omission would make the affidavit substantially misleading. On review under section 1538.5, facts must be deemed material for this purpose if, because of their inherent probative force, there is a substantial possibility they would have altered a reasonable magistrate's probable cause determination. The People urge that, even if Officer Matt intentionally omitted material facts, the warrant evidence should not be suppressed because the omissions were proper, or at least reasonable and in good faith. Defendant argues, on the other hand, that suppression is the proper remedy whenever material facts are intentionally or deliberately excluded. We must therefore decide what remedies apply when omissions from the affidavit are found.