Opinion ID: 844257
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Probable cause to seize certain items

Text: Here, the search warrant authorized the seizure of, among other specified items, a paramedic identification card in the name of Joseph [C.] and any documents or articles in the name of [Regina M.]. [26] The police did seize such items. They found Joseph C.'s paramedic identification card in a briefcase on defendant's bed. ( Ante, pt. I.A.5.) A letter addressed to Regina M. was found in defendant's bedroom. ( Ante, pt. I.A.3.) Defendant contends the trial court erred in admitting this evidence because the affidavit supporting the warrant did not mention Joseph C. or Regina M. by name. The contention lacks merit. (14) A search warrant must particularly describ[e] the place to be searched and the persons and things to be seized. (U.S. Const., 4th Amend.; Cal. Const., art. I, § 13; see also Pen. Code, § 1525.) The purpose of the particularity requirement is to prevent general searches. ( Maryland v. Garrison (1987) 480 U.S. 79, 84 [94 L.Ed.2d 72, 107 S.Ct. 1013]; People v. Farley (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1053, 1099 [96 Cal.Rptr.3d 191, 210 P.3d 361]; People v. Amador (2000) 24 Cal.4th 387, 392 [100 Cal.Rptr.2d 617, 9 P.3d 993].) Whether a warrant's description of property to be seized is sufficiently specific is a question of law subject to independent review by an appellate court. ( People v. Farley, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 1099; People v. Kraft, supra, 23 Cal.4th at p. 1041 ( Kraft ).) In his affidavit, Detective Heredia stated that in his experience serial rapists tend to keep records of their crimes, including documents belonging to the victims. He summarized the crimes he was investigating. Perhaps out of privacy considerations, the summaries did not identify the victims by name. However, the summary relating to Regina M.'s rapes states that the victim's wallet was taken. [27] Likewise, the summary of the attacks on Julia K. and Joseph C. states that the suspect took the male victim's picture i.d., adding that the suspect told them he used to be a paramedic. [28] (15) An affidavit in support of a search warrant is to be interpreted in a commonsense manner. ( United States v. Ventresca (1965) 380 U.S. 102, 109 [13 L.Ed.2d 684, 85 S.Ct. 741]; People v. Richardson (2008) 43 Cal.4th 959, 989 [77 Cal.Rptr.3d 163, 183 P.3d 1146].) The commonsense interpretation of this affidavit is that Joseph C.'s paramedic identification and Regina M.'s letter were among the items taken by the suspect during the crimes committed on the specified dates. (16) Moreover, `[w]hen officers, in the course of a bona fide effort to execute a valid search warrant, discover articles which, although not included in the warrant, are reasonably identifiable as contraband, they may seize them whether they are initially in plain sight or come into plain sight subsequently, as the result of the officers' efforts.' ( Skelton v. Superior Court (1969) 1 Cal.3d 144, 157 [81 Cal.Rptr. 613, 460 P.2d 485].) ( People v. Diaz (1992) 3 Cal.4th 495, 563 [11 Cal.Rptr.2d 353, 834 P.2d 1171].) Joseph C.'s paramedic identification and Regina M.'s letter clearly did not belong to defendant or his housemates. Just as clearly, Detective Keers, who was one of the officers executing the search warrant, knew they belonged to defendant's victims and were souvenirs of his crimes. Keers had been assigned to the investigation of this series of crimes because she took charge of the Kenny crime scene. The challenged evidence was properly seized and admitted.