Opinion ID: 2612406
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Validity of warrant.

Text: (1) Defendant first claims the fruits of the warrant search  the narcotics paraphernalia and pistol  should have been suppressed because the warrant affidavit did not disclose probable cause to search the Abbey Street house. The contention lacks merit. The affidavit by Officer Lira disclosed that on May 23, 1979, an untested informant told a narcotics officer that the informant could purchase heroin from Steve, also known as Indio, who resided at 16123 Abbey Street. The informant described Indio (Latin male, age twenty-seven, five feet seven to five feet nine inches, one hundred and thirty to one hundred and sixty pounds, short hair, goatee) and said Indio was dealing large quantities of heroin from the address. The police learned from official records (1) that a car was registered to Steven Martinez, Jr., at 16123 Abbey Street and (2) that Steven Martinez of that address, who was also known as Indio, had numerous arrests. The same day, Lira watched the informant make a controlled buy of one balloon of heroin in the backyard of the Abbey Street address. [2] The seller fit Indio's description, and the informant confirmed he was Indio. On the basis of this information, Lira, a trained narcotics officer, expressed the opinion that heroin was stored on the premises at 16123 Abbey Street. Defendant asserts that even if the affidavit justified Indio's arrest, it did not support a search of the residence. Apart from the claims of an untested informant, defendant suggests, the circumstances recited in the affidavit did not indicate contraband was stored inside the house. We disagree. Mere evidence of a suspect's guilt provides no cause to search his residence. (See People v. Cook (1978) 22 Cal.3d 67, 84, fn. 6 [148 Cal. Rptr. 605, 583 P.2d 130].) However, [a] number of California cases have recognized that from the nature of the crimes and the items sought, a magistrate can reasonably conclude that a suspect's residence is a logical place to look for specific incriminating items. [Citations.] ( People v. Miller (1978) 85 Cal. App.3d 194, 204 [149 Cal. Rptr. 204]; see also People v. Superior Court ( Brown ) (1975) 49 Cal. App.3d 160, 167-168 [122 Cal. Rptr. 459].) The informant had asserted that one Indio was selling large quantities of heroin from his residence in La Puente. (Italics added.) In corroboration of this claim, the police independently knew that Indio lived at the Abbey Street address and that a controlled buy from Indio had taken place on the property. These facts permitted a logical inference that narcotics were probably being kept on the premises. Defendant cites no cases suggesting otherwise. (2-4) (See fn. 3.) By any applicable standard, the warrant was valid. [3]