Opinion ID: 1312308
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Representation at the Pretrial Motions

Text: (12b) Defendant argues counsel acted unreasonably because he failed to urge the proper legal ground for the suppression of evidence at the section 1538.5 hearing. Defendant claims that the arrest warrant was invalid, and the fruits of the search incident to arrest inadmissible, because the warrant was constitutionally deficient under the United States Supreme Court decision in Illinois v. Gates (1983) 462 U.S. 213 [76 L.Ed.2d 527, 103 S.Ct. 2317]. Gates held that [s]ufficient information must be presented to the magistrate to allow that official to determine probable cause; his action cannot be a mere ratification of the bare conclusions of others. ( Id., at p. 239 [76 L.Ed.2d at p. 549].) Here, the arrest warrant was based on information supplied by Avery, an admitted accomplice. Thus, the information was sufficient to support the issuance of the arrest warrant. ( Gates, supra, 462 U.S. at p. 243 [76 L.Ed.2d at p. 551].) Counsel was not required to bring a motion on grounds which could not prevail and therefore his failure to argue lack of probable cause did not indicate ineffectiveness. ( People v. Frierson, supra, 25 Cal.3d 142, 158.) In any event, the People point out that before the section 1538.5 hearing, defense counsel filed a written motion to suppress all evidence seized during a search of the [Belleview Street] residence, with or without a search warrant, and all statements made by the defendant as a result of the unlawful search. Counsel advanced several grounds in favor of the motion (e.g., warrant executed at night, no probable cause to arrest defendant and improper delivery of evidence to Long Beach authorities), and cross-examined three of the four witnesses who appeared at the hearing. Moreover, counsel successfully objected to the introduction of several exhibits offered by the prosecution. Thus, the record shows that although defense counsel was unsuccessful in convincing the court to suppress the evidence linking defendant to the Crumb murders, counsel competently defended his client at the section 1538.5 hearing.