Court Opinion

ID: 9720082
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:14:52.602348+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:12.888916
License: Public Domain

ZENOVICH, J.
I respectfully dissent.
The majority attempts to characterize the present affidavit as either containing sufficient facts for probable cause to believe the marijuana was still in the motel room or containing an ambiguity subject to rehabilitation. I disagree with this attempted characterization. Instead, this is a case where there are no facts indicative of the time of X’s observations of marijuana.
The lead opinion concedes that the only time phrase—“Within the past seventy-two hours of today’s date [date of executing the search warrant affidavit]”—modifies the clause dealing with X’s talk to the affiant officer. It also recognizes that sound grammatical construction compels such an interpretation. Nevertheless, the majority posits that a reviewing court can presume that the magistrate could reasonably conclude that the time reference dealt with X’s observations of contraband through some scheme of grammatical juxtapositioning alien to the English language. Although Ventresca mandates a common sense reading of search warrant affidavits, it does not apply to situations in which there is an absence of language reflecting “fresh” observations by a confidential informant.
With the above in mind, it is pertinent to examine the “facts” upon which the majority sustains the warrant.
First, it is suggested that affiant’s third reference to receipt of information from the informant was included for another purpose (i.e., to suggest the freshness of informant’s observations). Although there was repetition of affiant’s statement about receipt of information, this is a natural consequence of the way he drafted the affidavit. The affiant sequentially set forth the reasons for the informant’s reliability and the need to maintain confidentiality. His repetitiveness was required in order to give continuity to the scenario he was depicting. It does not *853inferentially follow that the repetition was meant to refer to an unrelated subject, namely, the time of X’s visit to the motel room. (See Evid. Code, § 600, subd. (b).)
Second, the lead opinion then suggests that the insertion of the time reference can be interpreted as modifying a matter not mentioned previously—i.e., X’s visit to appellant’s room and observation of contraband. Again, the insertion of the time frame at this point does not necessarily mean that the phrase modified the time of X’s observations. Without such a modifying phrase, there would be no indication that the conversation of affiant-informant was of recent occurrence. Revelation of the time of the X-affiant talk was important, since it showed that the conversation itself was not stale.1
Third, the majority next places emphasis on the affiant’s statement that “There can now be found” evidence of marijuana in appellant’s room and upon reasoning contained in Watcher. Although stating to the contrary, the majority is giving weight to a conclusory assertion for purposes of finding probable cause. There is no factual basis in the affidavit which supports the affiant’s conclusions; thus, the bare statement by the officer is the type of assertion deemed deficient under the law. (See Pen. Code, § 1527; People v. Castro (1967) 249 Cal.App.2d 168, 171 [57 Cal.Rptr. 108].)
Wachter does not command the result suggested by the lead opinion. In that case, an affidavit failed to state the specific date on which an individual made observations leading to discovery of marijuana on a defendant’s premises. In sustaining the warrant, we relied partially on the fact that the affidavit recited that “there is now... on the premises described” (defendant’s property) “marijuana.” (Italics added.) We specifically noted that the word “now” was in the present tense, which suggests that the marijuana was being grown on defendant’s property at the time the affidavit was executed. (People v. Wachter (1976) 58 Cal.*854App.3d 911, 918 [130 Cal.Rptr. 279].) Although placing some reliance on this wording, our decision hinged upon two other reasons (“even more persuasive and substantial”) from which the magistrate could reasonably infer that the marijuana was observed at a time closely proximating the execution of the affidavit. First, it was noted that the individual observing the marijuana was a law enforcement officer who was on vacation and who had a duty to promptly report the information to the sheriffs office. Second, we also found that staleness was rebutted by the nature of the marijuana observed. In particular, we stated: “Most of the cases involving a lack of specificity as to the date of the discovery of the crime deal with such items as narcotics and drugs which are easily transportable, consumed, or hidden. That is not true of a growing crop of marijuana. It can disappear overnight only under the most exceptional circumstances. Even though it be harvested, evidence of its growth will continue to exist in the form of stubble and underground roots. It is not comparable to objects that are transitory, movable, easily hidden or consumed. For this reason a different time element must be applied to the instant case than would be applicable to the ordinary drug or narcotic violation cases.” (Id., at pp. 919-920, italics added.) After emphasizing that a growing crop was involved, we then noted that the magistrate’s conclusion was “further strengthened by the statement in the affidavit to the effect that marijuana was now growing on defendant’s premises.” (Id., at p. 920.) Thus, a close reading of Wachter shows that the conclusory word “now” was supported by inferences which could be drawn from facts contained in the affidavit. Furthermore, there were surrounding circumstances which made it reasonable for the magistrate to infer that the observations were recent in time.
The above discussion shows that Wachter is distinguishable from the instant situation. Unlike Wachter, the present case involves a bald conclusory statement which has no underpinnings in the facts revealed in the affidavit presented before the magistrate. Also, the present case involves a rather ambulatory form of narcotics (cut marijuana), which falls within the more stringent requirements of specificity applicable to transitory objects. (Id., at p. 920.) Because of its divergent factual setting, Wachter is inappropriate authority for sustaining the affidavit here.
Moreover, a reading of the Pellegrin decision cuts against the result reached by the majority. In that case, the court determined that a conclusory statement (i.e., “such plant did not appear to be growing wild”) did not indicate that marijuana was being cultivated in a defendant’s *855backyard, since the only supporting fact was that the affiant had observed one marijuana plant growing in the backyard area. The court specifically ruled that: “The magistrate is not presented with any facts indicating marijuana was being cultivated in Pellegrin’s backyard. Without a showing the marijuana was not growing wild there are no facts from which it can be inferred contraband was in Pellegrin’s home. Miller’s [the affiant’s] conclusory statement.. .was of no assistance to the magistrate.” (People v. Pellegrin (1977) 78 Cal.App.3d 913, 917 [144 Cal.Rptr. 421].) As in Pellegrin, there were no facts supporting Ford’s opinion that marijuana could then be found in appellant’s motel room. Thus, Pellegrin shows that the present affidavit cannot legally support the magistrate’s finding of probable cause.
The majority alternatively indicates that there was an ambiguity in the affidavit which could be cured by the rehabilitative procedure outlined in the Christian case. I do not believe this is an “ambiguity” case; instead, it is a “no time element” situation with regard to the informant’s observations of the contraband. As such, the attempt at post facto reformation must fail. Unlike Christian, there is no ambiguous language in the present affidavit; instead, the case at bar involves an affidavit in which there are no operative facts about the time of informant’s observations of contraband.2 The rehabilitative evidence garnered at the suppression proceeding could not retroactively establish probable cause, since the language about the time of the observation was not before the issuing magistrate. Since the magistrate asked no questions about the time of the observation and Officer Ford did not clarify this time frame before the magistrate, the critical requirement of having a magistrate scrutinize search warrants would be abrogated if this rehabilitative procedure were extended to cover affidavits lacking averments of operative facts.3 The attempt to characterize the present situation as an “ambiguity” must fail; it is a “no time element” case not amenable to rehabilitation.
*856Although not mentioned by the majority, I also reject another argument presented by respondent in its brief. Respondent argues that the magistrate could conclude that X’s observations were recent because he was aware of the police desire to maintain the confidential informant’s anonymity. It is respondent’s contention that “within the past seventy-two hours of today’s date” is deliberately indefinite, since it obscures the time and more adequately safeguards X’s identity. Based on the magistrate’s cognizance of this protective guise, it is suggested that the challenged passage could be read as dealing with the time frame of X’s visit to appellant’s room. The desire to protect the anonymity of the informant does not compel the conclusion that his observations of marijuana were necessarily made near the time that he related the perceptions to Officer Ford. Excision of X’s real name adequately protects his identity; it does not inescapably follow that use of the term “within seventy-two hours of today’s date” was interpreted by the magistrate as a means of couching the true identity of X.
Search warrant affidavits should not be interpreted in a hypertechnical or pedantic manner. Nonetheless, it is my opinion that the present one lacks any language suggestive of the time of the informant’s observations under ordinary rules of grammatical construction. Thus, the information must be deemed stale as a matter of law. It is my conviction that the affidavit was insufficient to support the issuance of the search warrant; the marijuana and admissions to Officer Ford should have been suppressed accordingly.
Appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied October 8, 1980.

A somewhat analogous situation was confronted in People v. Nelson (1959) 171 Cal.App.2d 356 [340 P.2d 718], overruled on another point, People v. Butler (1966) 64 Cal.2d 842, 844-845 [52 Cal.Rptr. 4, 415 P.2d 819], There, the affidavit referred to the date upon which information was first received from undisclosed informants, although there was no mention of when the informants themselves saw marijuana plants growing on defendant’s premises. The court sustained the affidavit because the affiant himself subsequently observed grown marijuana in the pertinent area. (Nelson, supra, 171 Cal.App.2d at pp. 359-360.) This suggests that a different result might occur in circumstances where there is no reference to an informant’s observation and no independent corroboration, as is the case in the present situation.

In a footnote, the Christian court stated: “The affidavit read as contended by the prosecution must, of course, be sufficient on its face to establish probable cause. The rehabilitative evidence of operative facts as opposed to meaning of words used in the affidavit is material only to the extent that it rebuts defense evidence tending to show that the averments of operative fact in the affidavit as so construed are inaccurate.” (People v. Christian (1972) 27 Cal.App.3d 554, 561, fn. 5 [103 Cal.Rptr. 740]; italics added.)
This passage shows that the Christian methodology is only applicable when there is actual language in the affidavit subject to differing interpretations.

The clarifying testimony of affiant before the superior court judge who heard the suppression motion is immaterial; the magistrate is the focal concern.