Court Opinion

ID: 9741728
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:01:06.129598+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:25.689562
License: Public Domain

MORGAN, Justice
(concurring in part, dissenting in part).
I concur in part and dissent in part.
I concur in the majority opinion up to the point of adopting Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978), but on that point in the instant case I dissent. I prefer the more recent holding of the California Supreme Court in People v. Cook, 22 Cal .3d 67, 148 Cal.Rptr. 605, 583 P.2d 130, opinion filed September 8, 1978,1 which distinguished the case of deliberate falsehoods by the affiant. Applying the maxim “falsus in uno, falsus in unomibus” the California Supreme Court held that excision of deliberate falsehoods does not leave the remaining allegations unaffected because the court cannot presume the remainder to be true. The court went on to hold: “Lacking a reliable factual basis in the affidavit, the court has no alternative under settled constitutional principles but to quash the warrant and exclude the products of the search.” 148 Cal.Rptr. at 616, 583 P.2d at 141.
In this case, although the trial court excised the questioned portions as noted in the majority opinion, he did not indicate whether he considered the statements deliberate falsehoods or merely in reckless disregard for the truth. Considering the statements as detailed in the majority opinion, I would hold them to be deliberate falsehoods and direct the trial court upon remand to enter an order of suppression.
I am hereby authorized to state that Justice Zastrow joins in this concurrence in part and dissent in part.

. The California Court acknowledged Franks v. Delaware, supra, but held that it afforded less protection than is guaranteed under California Law.