Court Opinion

ID: 9627000
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:30:38.394086+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:38.195687
License: Public Domain

SWAIN, P. J.
I concur. Even though we were to hold that Code of Civil Procedure, section 1985, does not apply to criminal actions, Cal. Const., art. I, § 19, which protects a *Supp. 915person against unreasonable search and seizure, means that it is “incumbent upon the one seeking an inspection to show clearly that he has a right thereto and that the constitutional guaranties will not be infringed.” (McClatchy Newspapers v. Superior Court (1945), 26 Cal.2d 386, 396 [159 P.2d 944].) This showing may be made by affidavit or otherwise. Therefore, if a subpoena duces tecum is issued without an affidavit or other proof of its constitutionality, a court cannot enforce the subpoena until the necessary proof is supplied. In the case at bar no attempt was made to supply that proof so the order to quash was proper.