Wasserman's Appellate Summaries
October 16, 2000
By Lawrence Wasserman, Esq.
Netlaw Libraries welcomes back attorney Lawrence Wasserman as a new website contributor. We are pleased to announce that his guest column, which synopsizes the recent decisions from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the California Supreme Court, the six California appellate districts, as well as some of the recent and interesting decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court, will be appearing as a regular feature for members and guests visiting the Netlaw Libraries website. We hope that you will find it to be a good way to start your legal research day and welcome your comments and criticisms regarding the column.
People v. Amador
Case No. S081969
California Supreme Court
CRIMINAL-ERRORS IN AFFIDAVIT FOR SEARCH WARRANT-KNOWLEDGE OF OFFICERS EXECUTING THE WARRANT OF RIGHT HOUSE TO BE SEARCHED
Police officers drove by a house with an informant. One officer took notes describing the house and the address. The officers obtained a warrant based on the notes taken. There was an error in the affidavit for the warrant, which described the house as two story and had the address as 10817 Leland Street, when it should have been a one story at 10811 Leland. It also turned out the house was in Whittier, not Santa Fe Springs. On execution of the warrant the warrant, the officers seized methamphetamine, a loaded firearm, about 1,000 blank credit cards, and various credit cards and receipts. Amador's motion to suppress was denied. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that there is no good faith when you are so careless that you get just about everything wrong.
HELD: Both the federal and state constitutions provide that a search warrant must particularly describe the place to be searched. The manifest purpose of this particularity requirement was to prevent general searches. By limiting the authorization to search to the specific areas and things for which there is probable cause to search, the requirement ensures that the search will be carefully tailored to its justifications, and will not take on the character of the wide-ranging exploratory searches the Framers intended to prohibit. Complete precision in describing the place to be searched is not required. It is enough if the description is such that the officer with a search warrant can, with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place intended. Whether the description was sufficient is a question of law, which a reviewing court decides independently. In this case the officer who prepared the affidavit for the warrant from notes and the executing officer were the same. The officer was easily able to locate and identify the specified premises, and there was little probability that another premise would be mistakenly searched. The warrant’s description was sufficient even if partially erroneous. The court may rely on the officer’s knowledge for assurance that the errors could not have caused a search of the wrong premises. Reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and remanded.
Planning and Conservation League v. Department Of Water Resources
Case No. C024576
California Court of Appeal, Third District
ORDER
Modification of opinion filed herein on September 15, 2000, not effecting the judgment.
*Change in law, interesting case, or just watch out!
For the complete California cases, visitors can click on here to go to
STATE DAILY OPINIONS
For the complete 9th Circuit cases, visitors can click on here to go to
FEDERAL RESOURCES
Wasserman's Archived Appellate Summaries
Back to Netlaw Libraries' Home Page