Court Opinion

ID: 9616977
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:51:07.805454+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:04.174192
License: Public Domain

CLARK, J.
I concur in the judgment and opinion of the court except insofar as it reaffirnjs the holding of People v. Cook (1978) 22 Cal.3d 67 [148 Cal.Rptr. 605, 583 P.2d 130]—that evidence obtained pursuant to a warrant issued in reliance on an affidavit containing deliberately false statements of fact must be excluded regardless of the effect of those statements on probable cause. I continue to believe the appropriate remedy in such a case is for the judge conducting the Theodor1 hearing to entirely reweigh the affiant’s credibility if he is found tb have lied in part: (22 Cal.3d at p. 101 (Clark, J., dis.).)

Theodor v. Superior Court (1972) 8 Cal.3d 77 [104 Cal.Rptr. 226, 501 P.2d 234].

Where the omitted adverse facts are merely cumulative, the warrant should stand. While this exception to the rule of exclusion might encourage law enforcement personnel to substitute their assessments of relevance for that of the magistrate, this will be at most a minor tendency. As the discussion below suggests, the magistrate’s determination of probable cause will not be suspect in such cases, despite the police’s breach of their constitutional duty to inform the magistrate of all relevant adverse information known to them. Thus, suppression is not warranted as a means of enforcing the Fourth Amendment in this limited situation.