Opinion ID: 1188768
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Search of the Defendant's Home

Text: The defendant claims as error the admission of the evidence seized inside his home during the search pursuant to warrant on April 19, 1978. He contends, first, the affidavit supporting the search warrant does not allege probable cause; second, the search warrant is overbroad in its description of the items to be seized; and, third, the warrant fails to particularize the issuing judge's determination of probable cause. We find no merit in these arguments. In denying the defendant's motion to suppress the trial court accorded the defendant the benefit of all doubt on the issue of probable cause. It disregarded those portions of the affidavit reciting the officers' observations upon their entry into the home on April 12, the statement of Dr. Lindsley that the case was suspicious, the reference to a prior act of child abuse, and the statement concerning the death of the child. Although it is questionable indeed whether the court was required to ignore these parts of the affidavit, [15] we are satisfied that the affidavit, exclusive of the challenged portions, does establish probable cause. It recites a serious brain injury to a four year old child occurring inside the defendant's home, the defendant's purported explanation of the injury, the emergency room physician's opinion that the severity of the injury was inconsistent with the defendant's explanation, and Mrs. Noble's admitted effort to falsify the circumstances surrounding the injury. The sources of all this information were police officers or persons known to the police, their identities were disclosed in the affidavit, and under the circumstances of this case the reliability of the information may be presumed. See, e. g., People v. Henry, Colo., 631 P.2d 1122 (1981); People v. Glaubman, 175 Colo. 41, 485 P.2d 711 (1971). On the basis of these recitals alone, it is reasonable to believe that Stephanie's injuries resulted from criminal conduct which occurred inside the defendant's home on April 12, 1978, and an examination of that home was appropriate. See, e. g., People v. Hampton, 196 Colo. 466, 587 P.2d 275 (1978); People v. Woods, 175 Colo. 34, 485 P.2d 491 (1971); People v. Malone, 175 Colo. 31, 485 P.2d 499 (1971). We also are satisfied that the search warrant was not overbroad in its description of the items to be seized. A rigid and unrealistic reading of a search warrant is not mandated. People v. Lamirato, 180 Colo. 250, 504 P.2d 661 (1972). Instead, the description of the property to be seized should be such that the officer charged with the duty of executing the warrant will be advised with a reasonable degree of certainty of the property to be seized. People v. Schmidt, 172 Colo. 285, 290, 473 P.2d 698, 700 (1970); see also People v. Lindholm, 197 Colo. 270, 591 P.2d 1032 (1979). The warrant here described the items to be seized with such particularity that there was little likelihood of confusion or uncertainty by the executing officer as to the scope of the permissible search. Finally, the search warrant was not invalidated by the failure of the issuing judge to particularize the reasons for his determination of probable cause. Crim.P. 41(d)(III) provides that a search warrant shall [s]tate the grounds or probable cause for its issuance. The provision was not intended to require the issuing judge to describe his mental process for reaching a probable cause determination but rather to require only that he state that the result has been reached. People v. Singleton, 174 Colo. 138, 141, 482 P.2d 978, 979 (1971). The search warrant expressly recited that the inspection, measurement and photographing of the interior of the home at 1781 South Naples Street in Aurora, Colorado, would be material evidence in a subsequent criminal prosecution. Such recitation is nothing short of a literal compliance with Crim.P. 41. Thus, the trial court properly denied the defendant's motion to suppress.