Court Opinion

ID: 9720057
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:14:33.613884+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:12.726819
License: Public Domain

EVANS, Acting P. J.
I dissent.
The majority, in a seemingly over-zealous quest to find some constitutional infirmity in the warrant process, seize upon the magistrate’s admitted failure to read every word of each police arrest report incorporated in the supporting affidavits, as a defect of sufficient magnitude to support their decision to invalidate the search warrants.
Admittedly, copies of some of the police report attachments were difficult to read if not totally illegible; however, it is clear that the vast majority of them, particularly those relied upon by the magistrate, were easily readable.
*459The statement by the majority that, “The attachments were part of the affidavits; Xerox machines cannot be permitted to weaken the Constitution. We may fairly conclude that such illegible declaration or exhibits cannot form the basis for a probable cause ruling” appears ludicrous when considered in the context of the entire record. It does not appear in any way from the record that the illegible “Xerox machine” copies were the basis of the magistrate’s determination of probable cause. To assume so requires an indulgence in judicial imagination.
I find the following facts from the record to be pertinent. At approximately 7 p.m. on March 9, 1979, Deputy District Attorney Holmer, who helped prepare the warrants, went to the magistrate’s home with Deputy Sheriffs Bernall and Santalina. Holmer testified that he explained to the magistrate that the same affidavit supported both warrants, and that the magistrate was presented with all 155 pages of police reports. He testified that the magistrate deliberately reviewed the entire affidavit, including the incorporated police reports. He further testified that neither he nor the officers made any substantive statements to the magistrate beyond the content of the affidavit. He estimated the magistrate spent 20 minutes to half an hour reviewing the affidavit.
Deputy Sheriff Santalina testified the deputy district attorney pointed out portions of the police reports to the magistrate, who then spent approximately one-half hour reviewing them.
The magistrate stated that although he did not read all of the police reports, he did examine “substantial portions” of them in considering whether or not to issue the warrant. He understood an informant was criminally involved in the case and recalled specifically examining the reports for independent corroboration of the informant’s statements as well as to match up stolen property identified in the reports with property described by the informant as located at the residence. He estimated his review of the affidavit took “from 45 minutes upwards.”
It is agreed that a magistrate must be neutral and detached and must exercise an informed and deliberate judgment in ascertaining whether the affidavits presented in support of a search warrant provide probable cause to justify the issuance of the warrant. (People v. Escamilla (1976) 65 Cal.App.3d 558, 562-563 [135 Cal.Rptr. 446].) I believe that this test was met.
*460My review of the record fails to reveal any indication that the magistrate was not neutral and detached, nor does it show that any substantive information beyond that contained in the affidavit was presented to him. I find substantial evidence that the magistrate complied with his duty to exercise an informed and deliberate judgment in ascertaining the existence of probable cause to support the issuance of the warrants.
The attack upon the warrants has not been directed to the adequacy of the substance of the legible attachments which accompanied the affidavits, nor has the. majority opinion found such a deficiency. Instead, we are told that because a magistrate fails to read illegible “Xerox” copies of some of the police arrest reports, the defendant’s fourth amendment rights have been impinged.
Such conclusion is a base example of judicial reverence for form over substance.
I would deny the writ.