People?v.?Camarella?(1991)?54?Cal.3d?592?,?286?Cal.Rptr.?780;?818?P.2d?63
[No.?S017787.?Oct?28,?1991.]THE?PEOPLE,?Plaintiff?and?Respondent,?v.?ROBERT?ANTHONY?CAMARELLA,?Defendant?and?Appellant.
(Superior?Court?of?Placer?County,?No.?0412,?James?D.?Garbolino,?Judge.)
(Opinion?by?Lucas,?C.?J.,?with?Panelli,?Kennard,?Arabian,?Baxter?and?George,?JJ.,?concurring.?Separate?dissenting?opinion?by?Mosk,?J.)
COUNSEL
Newsom,?Giffen?&?Bacon,?Newsom?&?Giffen?and?Brennan?J.?Newsom?for?Defendant?and?Appellant.
John?K.?Van?de?Kamp?and?Daniel?E.?Lungren,?Attorneys?General,?Steve?White,?Richard?B.?Iglehart?and?George?Williamson,?Chief?Assistant?Attorneys?General,?Arnold?O.?Overoye?and?Robert?R.?Anderson,?Assistant?Attorneys?General,?Thomas?Y.?Shigemoto,?Michael?Weinberger?and?Carlos?A.?Martinez,?Deputy?Attorneys?General,?for?Plaintiff?and?Respondent.
Kent?S.?Scheidegger,?Hunton?&?Williams?and?R.?Hewitt?Pate?as?Amici?Curiae?on?behalf?of?Plaintiff?and?Respondent.
OPINION
LUCAS,?C.?J.
- Introduction
We?granted?review?to?resolve?a?split?of?authority?in?the?Courts?of?Appeal?regarding?interpretation?of?the?so-called?”good?faith”?exception?to?the?[54?Cal.3d?596]?exclusionary?rule,?as?set?out?in?United?States?v.?Leon?(1984)?468?U.S.?897?[82?L.Ed.2d?677,?104?S.Ct.?3405]?(Leon).?By?virtue?of?California?Constitution,?article?I,?section?28,?subdivision?(d),?the?issue?is?purely?one?of?federal?constitutional?law.?(See?In?re?Lance?W.?(1985)?37?Cal.3d?873,?886-887?[210?Cal.Rptr.?631,?694?P.2d?744].)
[1]?In?Leon,?the?high?court?held?”the?Fourth?Amendment?exclusionary?rule?should?be?modified?so?as?not?to?bar?the?use?in?the?prosecution’s?case?in?chief?of?evidence?obtained?by?officers?acting?in?reasonable?reliance?on?a?search?warrant?issued?by?a?detached?and?neutral?magistrate?but?ultimately?found?to?be?unsupported?by?probable?cause.”?(468?U.S.?at?p.?900?[82?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?684].)?The?court?made?clear?that?the?government?has?the?burden?of?establishing?”objectively?reasonable”?reliance?(id.,?at?p.?924?[82?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?699]),?and?it?described?four?limited?situations?in?which?such?reliance?would?not?be?established,?and?in?which?suppression?under?the?exclusionary?rule?would?remain?an?appropriate?remedy:?(i)?the?issuing?magistrate?was?misled?by?information?that?the?officer?knew?or?should?have?known?was?false;?(ii)?the?magistrate?”wholly?abandoned?his?judicial?role”;?(iii)?the?affidavit?was?”?’so?lacking?in?indicia?of?probable?cause’?”?that?it?would?be?”?’entirely?unreasonable’?”?for?an?officer?to?believe?such?cause?existed;?and?(iv)?the?warrant?was?so?facially?deficient?that?the?executing?officer?could?not?reasonably?presume?it?to?be?valid.?(Id.,?at?p.?923?[82?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?699],?italics?added.)?This?case?concerns?application?of?the?third?of?these?situations.The?issues?are:?In?deciding?whether?a?given?case?falls?within?the?third?situation?described?above,?what?test?of?”objective?reasonableness”?should?apply,?and?what?effect,?if?any,?should?a?court?give?to?the?fact?that?a?magistrate?signed?a?search?warrant?later?used?to?effect?the?search?
We?distill?from?Leon,?supra,?468?U.S.?897,?and?its?progeny?the?following:?If?a?well-trained?officer?should?reasonably?have?known?that?the?affidavit?failed?to?establish?probable?cause?(and?hence?that?he?should?not?have?sought?a?warrant),?exclusion?is?required?under?the?third?situation?described?in?Leon,?and?a?court?may?not?rely?on?the?fact?that?a?warrant?was?issued?in?assessing?objective?reasonableness?of?the?officer’s?conduct?in?seeking?the?warrant.?But?in?all?other?cases,?unless?one?of?the?other?limited?Leon?situations?is?triggered,?Leon’s?”general”?rule?of?nonexclusion?will?apply.
On?the?facts?of?this?case,?we?find?the?Court?of?Appeal?erred?in?concluding?that?a?well-trained?officer?should?reasonably?have?known?that?the?affidavit?at?issue?here?failed?to?establish?probable?cause?for?the?search?of?defendant’s?home.?Pursuant?to?Leon,?we?conclude?the?police?reasonably?relied?on?the?magistrate’s?issuance?of?the?warrant,?and?thus?it?would?be?improper?to?[54?Cal.3d?597]?suppress?the?evidence?on?the?ground?urged?by?defendant.?Accordingly,?we?will?reverse?the?decision?of?the?Court?of?Appeal.
- Facts?and?Procedure
Placer?County?Sheriff’s?Detective?John?Addoms?received?a?telephone?call?from?an?anonymous?informant?who?claimed?defendant?was?selling?cocaine.?Addoms?conducted?additional?investigation?(described?below)?and?prepared?a?draft?affidavit?that?he?showed?to?a?deputy?district?attorney,?who?approved?the?document.?Addoms?then?submitted?the?affidavit?to?a?local?magistrate,?who?found?probable?cause?and?issued?a?search?warrant.?The?affidavit’s?recitation?of?facts?supporting?probable?cause?read?as?follows:
“Your?affiant?has?been?a?Deputy?Sheriff?for?the?past?five?years,?employed?in?[that]?capacity?by?the?Placer?County?Sheriff’s?Office?and?has?acted?and?received?the?information?set?forth?in?this?affidavit?in?that?capacity.
“Your?affiant?is?now?and?has?been?for?the?past?two?years?assigned?to?the?investigation?detail?thereof.
“On?May?6,?1986,?your?affiant?received?a?telephone?call?from?an?anonymous?female.?The?caller?told?your?affiant?that?she?wanted?to?give?your?affiant?information?regarding?a?cocaine?dealer,?but?feared?for?her?life?if?her?identity?was?disclosed?as?an?informant?and,?therefore,?refused?to?identify?herself?to?your?affiant.
“The?caller?told?your?affiant?she?used?to?be?a?heavy?user?of?cocaine?and?that?she?purchased?her?cocaine?from?’Bobby’?Camarella.?The?caller?stated?that?she?no?longer?uses?cocaine,?but?a?relative?of?hers?does?and?he?purchases?his?cocaine?from?Camarella.?The?caller?told?your?affiant?that?she?has?personally?known?Camarella?to?be?selling?cocaine?for?at?least?three?years?on?a?continual?and?ongoing?basis?and?has?heard?that?he?had?been?selling?cocaine?for?at?least?five?years.?The?caller?stated?that?Camarella?works?as?a?bartender?at?’Pete?and?Peter’s’?and?sells?cocaine?at?the?bar?as?well?as?at?his?residence.?Most?recently,?within?the?past?72?hours,?the?caller?stated?that?her?relative?told?her?that?he?had?just?purchased?one?gram?of?cocaine?from?Camarella?and?showed?her?a?paper?bindle?and?indicated?that?it?contained?the?cocaine?just?purchased.
“The?caller?told?your?affiant?that?Camarella?had?recently?moved?and?was?living?’near?the?Tahoe?City?Golf?Course,’?but?was?unable?to?provide?a?more?detailed?location.
“Your?affiant?checked?Sheriff’s?office?records?and?intelligence?files?and?discovered?the?following?corroborating?information:?[54?Cal.3d?598]
“In?February,?1985,?your?affiant?spoke?to?a?confidential?untested?informant?hereafter?referred?to?as?the?CI.?The?CI?told?your?affiant?that?a?person?he?knew?as?’Bobby?C’?was?an?active?dealer?in?cocaine.?The?CI?stated?that?’Bobby?C’?worked?as?a?bartender?at?’Pete?and?Peter’s’?bar?and?that?on?two?occasions?within?the?past?month?[the?CI]?had?purchased?cocaine?from?’Bobby?C’?at?’Pete?and?Peter’s,’?one?time?purchasing?one?gram?and?the?other?time?purchasing?one-half?gram.
“Your?affiant?discovered?Placer?County?Crime?report?#6272-82,?attached?and?incorporated?herein?as?exhibit?A.?The?report?indicates?that?on?November?5,?1982,?Camarella?was?arrested?by?Deputy?Shannon?of?the?Placer?County?Sheriff’s?Department?for?possession?of?cocaine.?At?the?time?of?booking,?Officer?Anderson?of?the?Placer?County?Sheriff’s?Department?found?on?Camarella’s?person?three?sheets?of?paper?with?numerous?names?or?initials?written?on?them?and?numbers?written?next?to?them,?some?[of]?the?numbers?being?crossed?out.
“Your?affiant?believes?the?sheets?of?paper?to?be?typical?of?what?is?commonly?known?as?’score?sheets,’?records?of?controlled?substance?sales.?The?names?or?initials?indicat[e]?individuals?and?the?numbers?indicat[e]?the?money?owed?for?a?controlled?substance?sale.?The?number?is?then?crossed?out?or?changed?when?payment?is?made?or?the?amount?owed?is?changed?because?of?additional?sales.
“The?Placer?County?Jail?booking?sheet?indicates?that?Camarella’s?nickname?is?’Bobby’?and?that?he?worked?as?a?bartender?at?’Pete?and?Peter’s.’
“Your?affiant?showed?Camarella’s?booking?photograph?to?Detective?Jones?of?the?Placer?County?Sheriff’s?Department?and?he?identified?Camarella?as?’Bobby’?that?works?as?a?bartender?at?’Pete?and?Peter’s’?bar?and?indicated?that?he?had?seen?’Bobby’?at?’Pete?and?Peter’s’?on?numerous?occasions.
“1982?Sheriff’s?Department?local?records?on?Camarella?indicate?that?Camarella?lived?at?1273?Alpine?Way;?however?the?caller?had?told?your?affiant?that?Camarella?had?recently?moved?’near?the?Tahoe?City?Golf?Course.’?Your?affiant?checked?Placer?County?Assessor?records?and?they?indicated?that?Camarella?was?the?owner?of?1273?Alpine?Way?and?605?Fairway?Drive,?605?Fairway?Drive?being?’near?the?Tahoe?City?Golf?Course.’?Your?affiant?checked?with?the?Sierra?Pacific?Power?Company?and?was?told?that?1273?Alpine?Way’s?power?was?still?in?the?name?of?Camarella;?however,?the?address?had?been?changed?to?in?care?of?Carol?Campbell,?indicating?to?your?affiant?that?Camarella?no?longer?lived?at?the?residence.?Believing?Camarella?now?lived?at?605?Fairway?Drive,?your?affiant?drove?by?the?described?residence?and?observed?a?yellow?Jeep?Wagoneer?Ca.?Lic.?#2AEN009?to?be?parked?in?the?driveway.?[54?Cal.3d?599]?Your?affiant?checked?DMV?records?and?discovered?the?vehicle?to?be?registered?to?Robert?A.?Camarella.”
The?affidavit?went?on?to?describe?Addoms’s?experience?and?training.?Addoms?claimed?to?have?participated?in?about?300?cases?involving?controlled?substances,?and?to?have?been?trained?by?various?law?enforcement?groups?in?that?subject.?Addoms?recounted?that?he?had?recently?attended?a?seminar?given?by?the?California?District?Attorney’s?Association?concerning,?inter?alia,?search?warrants?in?narcotics?cases.?Addoms?concluded?that?based?on?his?”education,?training,?and?experience,”?he?had?”reasonable?and?probable?cause?to?believe?that?grounds?for?the?issuance?of?a?search?warrant?exist,?as?set?forth?in?section?1524?of?the?Penal?Code,?based?upon?the?aforementioned?information,?facts?and?circumstances.”
The?magistrate?issued?the?warrant,?and?shortly?thereafter?Detective?Addoms?conducted?a?search?at?605?Fairway?Drive?in?Tahoe?City.?The?officers?discovered?various?items?including?310?grams?of?cocaine,?several?”score?sheets,”?and?$1,250?in?cash.?Defendant?was?arrested?and?charged?with,?inter?alia,?possessing?cocaine?for?sale?(Health?&?Saf.?Code,???11351)?and?possession?of?marijuana?(id.,???11357,?subd.?(b)).
At?the?preliminary?hearing,?Detective?Addoms?testified?that?because?the?Tahoe?City?community?is?small?and?he?and?the?two?other?detectives?at?the?local?station?were?well?known?in?the?community?it?would?have?been?difficult?to?conduct?surveillance?at?the?bar.?He?explained?his?reluctance?even?to?stop?near?defendant’s?home?because?he?feared?the?occupants?would?be?alerted?to?the?surveillance.?As?noted?above,?Addoms?stated?that?he?submitted?the?affidavit?to?a?deputy?district?attorney?for?approval?before?presenting?it?to?the?magistrate.?Finally,?Addoms?added?that?after?obtaining?the?warrant?but?before?serving?it?he?drove?past?defendant’s?home?at?least?four?times,?and?saw?the?yellow?jeep?each?time.?Although?the?magistrate?found?the?warrant?overbroad?in?certain?respects?and?indicated?he?would?exclude?evidence?relating?to?the?overbroad?parts?of?the?warrant?(see?post,?p.?607,?fn.?7),?he?nevertheless?held?defendant?to?answer?on?the?basis?of?the?nonexcluded?evidence?listed?above.
Thereafter?the?superior?court?denied?defendant’s?motion?to?set?aside?the?information?based?on?illegally?seized?evidence?(Pen.?Code,???995).?The?court?initially?found?that?”substantial?evidence”?supported?issuance?of?the?warrant.?On?reconsideration?of?the?probable?cause?issue,?however,?the?court?held?that?probable?cause?was?absent,?but?declined?to?exclude?the?remaining?evidence?because?it?concluded?that?pursuant?to?Leon,?supra,?468?U.S.?897,?Addoms?reasonably?relied?on?the?warrant.?[54?Cal.3d?600]
Defendant?pleaded?guilty?to?possessing?cocaine?for?sale?and?admitted?a?related?quantity?enhancement?(Pen.?Code,???1203.073,?subd.?(b)(1)).?The?court?sentenced?him?to?two?years?in?state?prison,?dismissed?the?marijuana?charge,?and?granted?bail?pending?appeal.
The?Court?of?Appeal?agreed?with?the?superior?court?that?the?affidavit?was?insufficient?to?establish?probable?cause,?and?hence?acknowledged?that?this?is?”a?pure?Leon?case.”?Neither?party?below?asserted?otherwise.
Addressing?the?Leon?issue,?the?Court?of?Appeal?majority?reversed.?The?majority?concluded?it?was?objectively?unreasonable?for?Addoms?to?believe?his?affidavit?supplied?probable?cause?for?issuance?of?the?warrant.?In?support?of?this?conclusion?the?court?emphasized?(i)?the?absence?of?”effort?to?ascertain?the?truth?of?the?suspicions?raised?about?defendant?by?the?anonymous?tipster”?through?surveillance,?and?(ii)?the?staleness?of?the?corroborating?information?(i.e.,?the?four-year-old?prior?arrest?and?the?fifteen-month-old?prior?tip).
By?contrast,?the?dissenting?justice?maintained?that?the?corroboration,?though?stale,?nevertheless?provided?some?basis?for?Addoms?to?reasonably?believe?probable?cause?existed.?This,?in?conjunction?with?the?background?investigation,?Addoms’s?presentation?of?the?affidavit?for?approval?by?a?deputy?district?attorney,?and?the?impracticality?of?a?more?extensive?surveillance?program?in?the?close?community?involved?here,?led?the?dissenting?justice?to?conclude?that?Addoms?”should?not?be?faulted?for?the?magistrate’s?error?in?issuing?the?warrant.?It?is?not?enough?that?a?reasonably?well-?trained?officer?might?have?suspected?the?facts?did?not?rise?to?the?level?of?probable?cause.?Only?where?no?reasonable?officer?of?reasonable?competence?would?have?believed?probable?cause?existed?is?good?faith?lacking.?This?is?not?such?a?case.”?(Italics?in?original.)?As?will?appear,?we?believe?the?dissenting?justice’s?view?is?in?conformity?with?Leon,?supra,?468?U.S.?897.
III.?Analysis
- Illinois?v.?Gates
The?court?observed?that?”probable?cause?is?a?fluid?concept-turning?on?the?assessment?of?probabilities?in?particular?factual?contexts-not?readily,?or?even?usefully,?reduced?to?a?neat?set?of?legal?rules.”?(Gates,?supra,?462?U.S.?at?p.?232?[76?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?544].)?[3]?And?yet,?the?court?noted,?there?are?established?guidelines?for?determining?the?existence?of?probable?cause:?”Our?decisions?applying?the?totality-of-the-circumstances?analysis?…?have?consistently?recognized?the?value?of?corroboration?of?details?of?an?informant’s?tip?by?independent?police?work?….?[A]n?affidavit?relying?on?hearsay?’is?not?to?be?deemed?insufficient?on?that?score,?so?long?as?a?substantial?basis?for?crediting?the?hearsay?is?presented.”?(Id.,?at?pp.?241-242?[76?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?550].)?The?court?explained?that?the?factors?set?out?in?its?prior?cases-i.e.,?”an?informant’s?’veracity,’?’reliability,’?and?’basis?of?knowledge’?”-are?”all?highly?relevant”?factors?that,?together?or?separately,?”usefully?illuminate?the?commonsense,?practical?question?whether?there?is?’probable?cause’?to?believe?that?contraband?or?evidence?is?located?in?a?particular?place.”?(Id.,?at?p.?230?[76?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?543].)?The?court?further?explained?that?”a?deficiency?in?one?[of?these?factors]?may?be?compensated?for,?in?determining?the?overall?reliability?of?a?tip,?by?a?strong?showing?as?to?the?other,?or?by?some?other?indicia?of?reliability.”?(Id.,?at?p.?233?[76?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?545].)
Addressing?anonymously?obtained?information,?the?Gates?court?observed,?”such?tips,?particularly?when?supplemented?by?independent?police?investigation,?frequently?contribute?to?the?solution?of?otherwise?’perfect?crimes.’?While?a?conscientious?assessment?of?the?basis?for?crediting?such?tips?is?required?by?the?Fourth?Amendment,?a?standard?that?leaves?virtually?no?place?for?anonymous?citizen?informants?is?not.”?(462?U.S.?at?pp.?237-238?[76?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?548].)?In?this?regard?the?court?noted?that?when?an?informant?is?anonymous?and?untested,?”[i]t?is?enough,?for?purposes?of?assessing?probable?cause,?that?'[c]orroboration?through?other?sources?of?information?reduce[s]?the?chances?of?a?reckless?or?prevaricating?tale,’?thus?providing?a?’substantial?basis?for?crediting?the?hearsay.’?”?(Id.,?at?pp.?244-245?[76?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?552].)
As?noted?above,?the?parties?do?not?contest?the?determination?of?the?superior?court?and?the?Court?of?Appeal,?that?the?magistrate?had?no?”substantial?basis”?for?concluding?there?was?probable?cause?supporting?the?search.?Although?this?conclusion?is?debatable,?and?although?the?question?is?one?of?law?subject?to?our?independent?review?(People?v.?Lawler?(1973)?9?Cal.3d?[54?Cal.3d?602]?156,?160?[107?Cal.Rptr.?13,?507?P.2d?621]),?we?decline?to?disturb?the?unchallenged?legal?determination?of?the?lower?courts.?Even?under?the?”commonsense”?and?nontechnical?approach?to?probable?cause?articulated?in?Gates,?supra,?462?U.S.?213,?it?is?arguable?that?additional?and?independent?corroboration?by?the?police?was?called?for?in?order?to?establish?a?”fair?probability”?that?contraband?would?be?found?in?defendant’s?house?at?the?time?the?warrant?was?to?be?executed.?We?thus?proceed?on?the?assumption?that?the?affidavit?failed?to?establish?probable?cause?that?contraband?would?be?found?in?defendant’s?home,?and?that?on?the?facts?presented?the?magistrate?had?no?”substantial?basis”?for?concluding?otherwise.?(Gates,?supra,?462?U.S.?at?pp.?238,?239?[76?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?548,?549].)
- United?States?v.?Leon
We?turn?to?the?question?of?whether?evidence?must?be?excluded?if?it?is?seized?pursuant?to?a?warrant?unsupported?by?probable?cause.?[4]?Under?high?court?cases?dating?from?Weeks?v.?United?States?(1914)?232?U.S.?383?[58?L?Ed?652,?34?S.Ct.?341],?evidence?seized?in?violation?of?a?defendant’s?Fourth?Amendment?rights?has?been?subject?to?exclusion?from?the?prosecution’s?case-in-chief.?Justice?White’s?opinion?for?the?court?in?Leon?concluded,?however,?that?the?”benefits”?of?this?rule?were?”marginal?or?nonexistent”?in?a?case?in?which?the?challenged?evidence?was?”obtained?in?objectively?reasonable?reliance?on?a?subsequently?invalidated?search?warrant,”?and?that?exclusion?in?such?situations?is?inappropriate.?(Leon,?supra,?468?U.S.?at?p.?922?[76?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?698].)?The?court?observed,?”?’If?the?purpose?of?the?exclusionary?rule?is?to?deter?unlawful?police?conduct,?then?evidence?obtained?from?a?search?should?be?suppressed?only?if?it?can?be?said?that?the?law?enforcement?officer?had?knowledge,?or?may?properly?be?charged?with?knowledge,?that?the?search?was?unconstitutional?under?the?Fourth?Amendment.’?”?(Id.,?at?p.?919?[82?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?696],?quoting?United?States?v.?Peltier?(1975)?422?U.S.?531,?542?[45?L.Ed.2d?374,?384,?95?S.Ct.?2313],?italics?added.)
The?court?cautioned,?however,?that?although?”?’a?warrant?issued?by?a?magistrate?normally?suffices?to?establish’?that?a?law?enforcement?officer?has?’acted?in?good?faith?in?conducting?the?search’?”?(Leon,?supra,?468?U.S.?at?p.?922?[82?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?698],?italics?added),?there?are?limited?situations?in?which?this?presumption?does?not?apply.?An?”officer’s?reliance?on?the?magistrate’s?probable-cause?determination?…?must?be?objectively?reasonable,?cf.?Harlow?v.?Fitzgerald?[(1982)]?457?U.S.?800,?815-819?[73?L.Ed.2d?396,?102?S.Ct.?2727],?and?it?is?clear?that?in?some?circumstances?the?officer?will?have?no?reasonable?grounds?for?believing?that?the?warrant?was?properly?issued.”?(Id.,?at?pp.?922-923?[82?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?698],?fns.?omitted.)?In?a?footnote?after?the?citation?to?Harlow?v.?Fitzgerald?(1982)?457?U.S.?800?[73?L.Ed.2d?396,?102?S.Ct.?2727],?the?court?explained?that?its?inquiry?in?this?regard?will?be?[54?Cal.3d?603]?”confined?to?the?objectively?ascertainable?question?whether?a?reasonably?well?trained?officer?would?have?known?that?the?search?was?illegal?despite?the?magistrate’s?authorization.”?(Leon,?supra,?468?U.S.?at?p.?922,?fn.?23?[82?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?698],?italics?added.)?The?court?then?described?four?situations?in?which?suppression?would?remain?an?appropriate?remedy.?The?third?situation-urged?by?defendant?in?this?case-provides?as?follows:
“Nor?would?an?officer?manifest?objective?good?faith?in?relying?on?a?warrant?based?on?an?affidavit?’so?lacking?in?indicia?of?probable?cause?as?to?render?official?belief?in?its?existence?entirely?unreasonable.’?Brown?v.?Illinois?[(1975)],?422?U.S.?[590],?610-611?[45?L.Ed.2d?416,?95?S.Ct.?2254]?(Powell,?J.,?concurring?in?part);?see?Illinois?v.?Gates,?supra,?462?U.S.?at?[pages]?263-264?(White,?J.,?concurring?in?judgment).”?(Leon,?supra,?468?U.S.?at?p.?923?[82?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?699].)fn.?1
The?Leon?court?concluded?by?observing?that?none?of?the?four?situations?in?which?exclusion?remains?the?appropriate?remedy?pertained?on?the?facts?before?it.?Although?the?defendant?asserted?that?no?reasonable?and?well-trained?officer?”could?have?believed?that?there?existed?probable?cause”?for?the?search?(468?U.S.?at?p.?926?[82?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?701]),?the?high?court?rejected?that?claim,?observing?that?the?searching?officer?had?submitted?to?the?magistrate?”much?more?than?a?’bare?bones’?affidavit.?The?affidavit?related?the?results?of?an?extensive?investigation?and?…?provided?evidence?sufficient?to?create?disagreement?…?as?to?the?existence?of?probable?cause.?Under?these?circumstances,?the?officers’?reliance?on?the?magistrate’s?determination?of?probable?cause?was?objectively?reasonable,?and?application?of?the?extreme?sanction?of?exclusion?is?inappropriate.”?(Ibid.)
Subsequent?developments?in?Malley?v.?Briggs?(1986)?475?U.S.?335?[89?L.Ed.2d?271,?106?S.Ct.?1092]?(Malley),?a?civil?rights?action?(42?U.S.C.???1983)?also?authored?by?Justice?White,?illuminate?Leon.?In?Malley?the?plaintiff?sued?a?state?trooper?for?violating?his?civil?rights?by?improperly?[54?Cal.3d?604]?applying?for?an?arrest?warrant?that?was?subsequently?erroneously?issued,?and?thereafter?executed.?The?trooper,?asserting?”qualified?immunity,”?claimed?he?was?”shielded?from?damages?liability?because?the?act?of?applying?for?a?warrant?is?per?se?objectively?reasonable,?provided?that?the?officer?believes?that?the?facts?alleged?in?his?affidavit?are?true.”?(Malley,?supra,?475?U.S.?at?p.?345?[89?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?281],?italics?added.)?The?trooper?insisted?he?was?”entitled?to?rely?on?the?judgment?of?a?judicial?officer?in?finding?that?probable?cause?exists?and?hence?issuing?the?warrant.”?(Ibid.)?The?court,?however,?rejected?this?argument.?It?held,?”the?same?standard?of?objective?reasonableness?that?we?applied?in?the?context?of?a?suppression?hearing?in?Leon,?supra,?defines?the?qualified?immunity?accorded?an?officer?whose?request?for?a?warrant?allegedly?caused?an?unconstitutional?arrest”?(id.,?at?p.?344?[89?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?280],?italics?added),?and?concluded?the?trooper’s?view?”is?at?odds?with?…?Leon.”?(Id.,?at?p.?345?[89?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?281],?italics?added.)
The?court?explained?that?pursuant?to?Leon,?the?question?to?be?addressed?”is?whether?a?reasonably?well-trained?officer?in?[the?trooper’s]?position?would?have?known?that?his?affidavit?failed?to?establish?probable?cause?and?that?he?should?not?have?applied?for?the?warrant.?If?such?was?the?case,?the?officer’s?application?for?a?warrant?was?not?objectively?reasonable,?because?it?created?the?unnecessary?danger?of?an?unlawful?arrest.?It?is?true?that?in?an?ideal?system?an?unreasonable?request?for?a?warrant?would?be?harmless,?because?no?judge?would?approve?it.?But?ours?is?not?an?ideal?system,?and?it?is?possible?that?a?magistrate,?working?under?docket?pressures,?will?fail?to?perform?as?a?magistrate?should.?We?find?it?reasonable?to?require?the?officer?applying?for?the?warrant?to?minimize?this?danger?by?exercising?reasonable?professional?judgment.”?(Malley,?supra,?475?U.S.?at?pp.?345-346?[89?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?281],?italics?added,?fns.?omitted;?see?also?id.,?p.?346,?fn.?9?[89?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?281]?[if?magistrate?issues?warrant?when?no?officer?of?reasonable?competence?would?have?sought?warrant,?”The?officer?then?cannot?excuse?his?own?default?by?pointing?to?the?greater?incompetence?of?the?magistrate.”].)
- Interpreting?Leon
Our?Courts?of?Appeal,?like?the?appellate?courts?of?other?states?and?the?federal?appellate?courts,?have?expressed?confusion?in?attempting?to?apply?Leon,?supra,?468?U.S.?897.?For?example,?some?courts?appear?to?conclude?that?in?determining?whether?an?officer?was?objectively?reasonable?in?submitting?an?affidavit?to?a?magistrate,?it?is?proper?to?consider?the?fact?that?the?magistrate?signed?(albeit?erroneously)?the?warrant.?(People?v.?Brown?(1990)?231?Cal.App.3d?1201?[274?Cal.Rptr.?432],?review?granted?Jan.?4,?1991?(S018256)?[magistrate’s?issuance?of?warrant?is?a?factor?in?determining?[54?Cal.3d?605]?whether?objectively?reasonable?officer?would?have?submitted?affidavit?to?magistrate].)fn.?2
Other?courts?have?held?otherwise.?[5]?People?v.?Maestas?(1988)?204?Cal.App.3d?1208?[252?Cal.Rptr.?739]?concludes?that?the?objective?reasonableness?of?an?officer’s?decision?to?apply?for?a?warrant?must?be?judged?based?on?the?affidavit?and?the?evidence?of?probable?cause?contained?therein?and?known?to?the?officer,?”and?without?consideration?of?the?fact?that?the?magistrate?accepted?the?affidavit.”?(Id.,?at?p.?1214.)fn.?3
On?this?point,?we?agree?with?Maestas,?supra,?204?Cal.App.3d?1208.?The?fact?that?a?magistrate?has?issued?a?warrant-in?other?words,?the?fact?that?an?officer?sought?and?obtained?advance?judicial?approval?for?the?search-is?what?caused?the?high?court?to?establish?the?Leon?exception?in?the?first?place.?By?definition,?in?every?case?in?which?the?prosecution?seeks?the?benefit?of?Leon,?a?magistrate?has?issued?a?warrant;?issuance?of?the?warrant?defines?the?class?of?cases?eligible?for?nonexclusion?under?the?Leon?rule.?Because?issuance?of?a?warrant?is?a?constant?factor?in?these?cases,?it?cannot?logically?serve?to?distinguish?among?them.?Moreover,?it?is?clear?that?the?high?court?does?not?intend?the?issuance?of?a?warrant?to?be?a?consideration?under?Leon.fn.?4?We?thus?conclude?that?in?determining?whether?a?case?is?within?the?third?Leon?situation,?the?fact?that?the?warrant?issued?is?of?no?significance.fn.?5
[6]?Maestas,?supra,?204?Cal.App.3d?1208,?1217,?1218,?also?correctly?articulates?the?test?by?which?the?”objective?reasonableness”?of?an?officer’s?decision?to?submit?an?affidavit?to?a?magistrate?is?to?be?judged:?The?test,?which?was?initially?formed?in?Leon,?supra,?468?U.S.?at?pages?919-926?[82?L.Ed.2d?at?pages?696-701],?and?which?was?subsequently?articulated?clearly?in?Malley,?supra,?475?U.S.?at?page?345?[89?L.Ed.2d?at?page?281],?is?whether?[54?Cal.3d?606]?a?reasonable?and?well-trained?officer?”would?have?known?that?his?affidavit?failed?to?establish?probable?cause?and?that?he?should?not?have?applied?for?the?warrant.”?(Ibid.,?italics?added,?fn.?omitted.)?But?if?such?an?officer?would?not?reasonably?have?known?that?the?affidavit?(and?any?other?supporting?evidence)?failed?to?establish?probable?cause,?there?is?no?reason?to?apply?the?exclusionary?rule,?because?there?has?been?no?objectively?unreasonable?police?conduct?requiring?deterrence.?(Leon,?supra,?468?U.S.?at?p.?919?[82?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?696].)?An?officer?in?this?latter?situation?will?be?permitted?to?rely?on?the?warrant,?and?Leon’s?general?rule?of?nonexclusion?will?apply,?unless?one?of?Leon’s?other?limited?”exclusion”?situations?is?triggered.- Application?to?the?facts
It?is?true,?as?the?majority?in?the?Court?of?Appeal?noted?below,?that?a?reasonable?officer?might?have?undertaken?additional?investigation?to?augment?the?affidavit?before?submitting?it?to?the?magistrate.?The?question?under?Leon,?supra,?468?U.S.?879,?however,?is?not?whether?further?investigation?would?have?been?reasonable,?but?whether?a?reasonable?officer?in?Addoms’s?position?would?have?known?that?the?affidavit,?as?it?existed?at?the?time?it?was?to?be?presented?to?the?magistrate,?was?legally?insufficient?without?additional?and?more?recent?corroboration.fn.?6
We?cannot?say?that?an?objective?and?reasonable?officer?would?have?”known”?this?affidavit?failed?to?establish?probable?cause.?It?is?plain?from?the?affidavit?that?Addoms?conducted?more?than?a?mere?”bare?bones”?investigation?(see?Gates,?supra,?462?U.S.?at?p.?239?[76?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?548-?549];?Leon,?supra,?468?U.S.?at?p.?926?[82?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?700-701]).?He?obtained?substantial?corroborating?information?that,?although?stale,?was?sufficient?to?make?the?probable?cause?determination?a?close?question?for?any?objectively?reasonable?and?well-trained?officer,?and,?indeed,?for?reasonable?judicial?officers?as?well?(Leon,?supra,?468?U.S.?at?p.?926?[82?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?700-701]?[affidavit?”provided?evidence?sufficient?to?create?disagreement?among?thoughtful?and?competent?judges?as?to?the?existence?of?probable?cause”]).?Addoms?thereafter?[54?Cal.3d?607]?submitted?the?affidavit?to?a?deputy?district?attorney,?who?approved?it.?Under?these?circumstances,?we?conclude?Addoms?acted?reasonably?when?he?took?this?affidavit?to?a?judicial?officer?for?determination.?His?subsequent?reliance?on?the?warrant?that?was?issued?was?thus?objectively?reasonable?under?Leon,?and?suppression?of?the?evidence?is?not?required.
- Conclusion
The?judgment?of?the?Court?of?Appeal?is?reversed.fn.?7
Panelli,?J.,?Kennard,?J.,?Arabian,?J.,?Baxter,?J.,?and?George,?J.,?concurred.
MOSK,?J.
I?dissent.
The?Fourth?Amendment?to?the?United?States?Constitution?declares?that?”The?right?of?the?people?to?be?secure?in?their?persons,?houses,?papers?and?effects,?against?unreasonable?searches?and?seizures,?shall?not?be?violated,?and?no?warrants?shall?issue,?but?upon?probable?cause,?supported?by?oath?or?affirmation,?and?particularly?describing?the?place?to?be?searched,?and?the?persons?or?things?to?be?seized.”
Separately?and?independently,?section?13?of?article?I?of?the?California?Constitution?(hereafter?article?I,?section?13)?makes?a?similar?declaration:?”The?right?of?the?people?to?be?secure?in?their?persons,?houses,?papers,?and?effects?against?unreasonable?searches?and?seizures?may?not?be?violated;?and?a?warrant?may?not?issue?except?on?probable?cause,?supported?by?oath?or?affirmation,?particularly?describing?the?place?to?be?searched?and?the?persons?and?things?to?be?seized.”
Under?a?rule?of?exclusion,?evidence?obtained?in?violation?of?the?Fourth?Amendment?is?inadmissible.?(E.g.,?Weeks?v.?United?States?(1914)?232?U.S.?[54?Cal.3d?608]?383,?389-398?[58?L.Ed.?652,?654-658,?34?S.Ct.?341]?[federal?prosecutions];?Mapp?v.?Ohio?(1961)?367?U.S.?643,?646-660?[6?L.Ed.2d?1081,?1084-1093,?81?S.Ct.?1684,?84?A.L.R.2d?933]?[state?prosecutions].)
Under?a?similar?rule,?evidence?obtained?in?violation?of?article?I,?section?13,?is?similarly?inadmissible.?(E.g.,?People?v.?Cahan?(1955)?44?Cal.2d?434,?445?[282?P.2d?905,?50?A.L.R.2d?513]?[decided?under?the?substantially?identical?former???19?of?art.?I?of?Cal.?Const.].)
In?United?States?v.?Leon?(1984)?468?U.S.?897?[82?L.Ed.2d?677,?104?S.Ct.?3405]?(hereafter?sometimes?Leon),?the?United?States?Supreme?Court?fabricated?an?exception?to?the?exclusionary?rule?of?the?Fourth?Amendment?that?allows?”the?use?in?the?prosecution’s?case?in?chief?of?evidence?obtained?by?officers?acting?in?[objectively]?reasonable?reliance?on?a?search?warrant?issued?by?a?detached?and?neutral?magistrate?but?ultimately?found?to?be?unsupported?by?probable?cause.”?(Id.?at?p.?900?[82?L.Ed.2d?at?p.684].)?The?court?declared?the?exception?inapplicable?when?(1)?the?magistrate?”was?misled?by?information?in?an?affidavit?that?the?affiant?knew?was?false?or?would?have?known?was?false?except?for?his?reckless?disregard?of?the?truth”;?(2)?the?magistrate?”wholly?abandoned?his?judicial?role”;?(3)?the?affidavit?is?”?’so?lacking?in?indicia?of?probable?cause?as?to?render?official?belief?in?its?existence?entirely?unreasonable[?]’?”;?or?(4)?the?warrant?is?”so?facially?deficient?…?that?the?executing?officers?cannot?reasonably?presume?it?to?be?valid.”?(Id.?at?p.?923?[82?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?699].)
In?In?re?Lance?W.?(1985)?37?Cal.3d?873,?884-893?[210?Cal.Rptr.?631,?694?P.2d?744],?by?a?vote?of?four?to?three,?a?majority?of?this?court?effectively?abrogated?the?exclusionary?rule?of?article?I,?section?13.?What?remains?is?the?exclusionary?rule?of?the?Fourth?Amendment-and?with?it,?the?Leon?exception.
It?has?been?manifest?from?the?very?day?on?which?it?was?handed?down?that?Leon?was?wrongly?decided.
The?dissenting?opinions?in?Leon?authored?by?Justice?Brennan?and?Justice?Stevens?are?each?irrefutable.?(468?U.S.?at?pp.?928-960?[82?L.Ed.2d?at?pp.?722-736]?(dis.?opn.?of?Brennan,?J.);?id.?at?pp.?960-980?[82?L.Ed.2d?at?pp.?702-723]?(dis.?opn.?of?Stevens,?J.).)
Also,?commentators?have?time?and?again?demonstrated?Leon’s?fatal?flaws.?(E.g.,?1?LaFave,?Search?&?Seizure?(2d?ed.?1987)???1.3,?pp.?46-80,?and?the?commentary?cited?therein;?Duke,?Making?Leon?Worse?(1986)?95?Yale?L.J.?1405,?1405?[“…?Leon?is?one?of?the?weakest?of?the?Court’s?criminal?procedure?opinions.”].)?[54?Cal.3d?609]
Even?more?significant,?the?courts?of?several?of?our?sister?states-including?high?courts?of?the?first?rank-have?criticized?Leon’s?rationale?on?its?own?terms?and?have?refused?to?adopt?its?holding?under?their?own?constitutions.?(E.g.,?State?v.?Marsala?(1990)?216?Conn.?150,?151,?159-171?[579?A.2d?58];?State?v.?Novembrino?(1987)?105?N.J.?95,?99-102,?129-159?[519?A.2d?820];?People?v.?Bigelow?(1985)?66?N.Y.2d?417,?426-427?[497?N.Y.S.2d?630,?488?N.E.2d.?451];?State?v.?Carter?(1988)?322?N.C.?709,?710,?712-724?[370?S.E.2d.?553];?Commonwealth?v.?Edmunds?(1991)?526?Pa.?374,?376,?382-412?[586?A.2d?887,?888,?891-906].)
Today,?the?Leon?exception?survives?under?the?exclusionary?rule?of?the?Fourth?Amendment?only?because?its?source?is?authoritative:?its?reasoning?has?been?shown?to?be?empty.?It?remains?vital?in?California?only?by?dint?of?the?plainly?erroneous?decision?of?a?bare?majority?of?this?court?in?In?re?Lance?W.,?supra,?37?Cal.3d?873.
I?am?confident?that?some?day?soon,?the?United?States?Supreme?Court?will?reconsider?and?overrule?Leon.?Recently,?in?Payne?v.?Tennessee?(1991)?501?U.S.?___,?___-___?[115?L.Ed.2d?720,?730-379,?111?S.Ct.?2597,?2604-2611],?it?did?just?that?(in?large?part)?to?Booth?v.?Maryland?(1987)?482?U.S.?496?[96?L.Ed.2d?440,?107?S.Ct.?2529],?and?South?Carolina?v.?Gathers?(1989)?490?U.S.?805?[104?L.Ed.2d?876,?109?S.Ct.?2207]-decisions?that?had?drawn?attacks?that?were?far?fewer,?far?weaker,?and?far?less?justified.?If?the?court?did?not?hesitate?to?dispatch?Booth?and?Gathers,?surely?it?should?give?Leon?its?quietus?as?well.
But?until?Leon?is?overruled,?it?continues?to?govern.?Accordingly,?the?question?before?the?court?must?be?addressed?under?its?shadow.
The?first?issue,?of?course,?is?whether?the?search?of?defendant’s?home?and?the?seizure?of?items?therefrom?were?violative?of?his?rights?under?the?Fourth?Amendment?and/or?article?I,?section?13.?Both?the?superior?court?and?the?Court?of?Appeal?resolved?the?matter?in?the?affirmative,?expressly?as?to?the?federal?guaranty?and?impliedly?as?to?the?state.?I?agree.
Detective?John?F.?Addoms?of?the?Placer?County?Sheriff’s?office?and?other?law?enforcement?agents?conducted?the?search?and?seizure.?They?did?indeed?have?a?search?warrant.?But?probable?cause?was?lacking.?The?warrant?was?supported?solely?by?an?affidavit?executed?by?Addoms.?The?affidavit?was?insufficient.?In?a?telephone?conversation?with?Addoms,?an?anonymous?and?untested?female?tipster?made?an?accusation?that?defendant?was?currently?engaged?in?the?sale?of?cocaine?in?Tahoe?City?both?at?his?home?and?at?an?establishment?where?he?tended?bar.?The?facts?she?stated?revealed?she?was?personally?acquainted?with?defendant.?(The?record?suggests?she?was?a?former?[54?Cal.3d?610]?lover.)?But?they?did?not?show?much?more.?Certainly,?there?was?no?claim?she?herself?had?recently?bought?cocaine?from?defendant?or?had?even?witnessed?a?sale.?All?that?appears?in?this?regard?is?the?hearsay?assertion?that?a?relative?had?lately?told?her?that?he?had?made?such?a?purchase.?Addoms’s?corroboration?of?the?tip?was?devoted?in?large?part?to?an?investigation?of?defendant’s?identity?and?address.?His?purported?corroboration?of?the?accusation?proper?was?limited?to?a?15-month-old?statement?from?a?confidential?and?untested?tipster?and?a?3?1/2-year-old?crime?report.
The?majority?claim?that?the?presence?of?probable?cause?is?a?close?question.?I?disagree.?There?was?a?bare?accusation?by?an?anonymous?and?untested?tipster?that?defendant?was?then?selling?cocaine.?There?was?no?effective?corroboration.?The?15-month-old?statement?from?the?confidential?and?untested?tipster?and?the?3?1/2-year-old?crime?report?were?stale.?They?may?each?have?had?some?tendency?to?substantiate?an?allegation?made?contemporaneously?therewith.?But?whether?considered?separately?or?together,?they?were?insufficient?to?support?the?charge?here.?Certainly,?this?was?not?a?case?in?which?investigation?into?the?tip?was?precluded?by?time?or?circumstances.?There?was?no?emergency.?The?suspected?criminal?activity?did?not?demand?immediate?action.?Neither?did?defendant’s?status-he?was?a?longtime?resident?and?homeowner.?Further,?there?was?no?bar?to?the?gathering?of?evidence.?Law?enforcement?officers?from?outside?the?environs?of?Tahoe?City?could?readily?have?conducted?surveillance.?Such?officers?would?have?attracted?little?attention?to?themselves:?strangers?are?common?in?this?popular?resort?area?at?all?times?of?the?year.
The?second?issue?to?be?considered?here?is?whether?the?evidence?comprising?the?items?unconstitutionally?seized?from?defendant’s?home?came?within?the?exclusionary?rule?of?the?Fourth?Amendment?or?outside?its?ambit?in?the?Leon?exception.?The?superior?court?allowed?the?exception,?refused?suppression,?and?subsequently?entered?a?judgment?against?defendant?on?his?plea?of?guilty.?The?Court?of?Appeal?applied?the?rule?and?proceeded?to?reverse.?I?agree?with?the?Court?of?Appeal.
As?explained,?the?items?seized?from?defendant’s?home?were?obtained?in?violation?of?his?rights?under?the?Fourth?Amendment?and?article?I,?section?13.?It?cannot?be?said?that?Detective?Addoms?and?his?companions?acted?”in?[objectively]?reasonable?reliance”?on?the?search?warrant.?(United?States?v.?Leon,?supra,?468?U.S.?at?p.?900?[82?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?684].)?It?must?have?been?manifest?even-and?perhaps,?especially-to?a?”reasonably?well?trained?officer”?(id.?at?p.?922,?fn.?23?[82?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?922])?that?probable?cause?was?lacking.?The?affidavit?revealed?little?more?than?a?bare,?and?uncorroborated,?accusation?by?an?anonymous?and?untested?tipster?that?defendant?was?then?selling?cocaine.?That?a?deputy?district?attorney?subsequently?”reviewed”?and?[54?Cal.3d?611]?”approved”?the?document?did?not,?and?could?not,?make?up?for?what?was?absent.?Accordingly,?the?Leon?exception?was?inapplicable.?The?affidavit?was?”?’so?lacking?in?indicia?of?probable?cause?as?to?render?official?belief?in?its?existence?entirely?unreasonable.’?”?(Id.?at?p.?923?[82?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?922].)
The?majority?conclude?to?the?contrary.?Their?reasoning?rests?at?bottom?on?their?claim?that?the?presence?of?probable?cause?is?a?close?question.?As?I?have?shown,?that?assertion?is?unsupported.
In?short,?”When?constitutional?rights?are?implicated,?the?end?cannot?justify?the?means.”?(In?re?Lance?W.,?supra,?37?Cal.3d?at?p.?910?(dis.?opn.?of?Mosk,?J.).)
For?the?reasons?stated?above,?I?would?affirm?the?judgment?of?the?Court?of?Appeal.
FN?1.?Brown?v.?Illinois?(1975)?422?U.S.?590?[45?L.Ed.2d?416,?95?S.Ct.?2254],?from?which?the?Leon?court?borrowed?its?”third?situation”?language,?involved?suppression?of?statements?made?in?custody?following?an?illegal?arrest.?The?court?concluded?that?the?initial?taint?of?the?illegal?arrest?had?not?been?attenuated?by?a?warning?under?Miranda?v.?Arizona?(1966)?384?U.S.?436?[16?L.Ed.2d?694,?86?S.Ct.?1602,?10?A.L.R.3d?974],?and?that?the?prosecution?had?failed?in?its?burden?of?showing?the?statements?were?the?product?of?free?will?untainted?by?the?initial?violation.?Justice?Powell?wrote?in?a?concurrence?that?he?would?remand?the?matter?to?permit?the?trial?court?to?decide?if?the?prosecution?had?adequately?met?its?burden?of?proof.?He?suggested?that?although?”flagrant”?police?violations?of?the?Fourth?Amendment?could?rarely?be?attenuated?by?Miranda?warnings,?mere?”technical”?violations?of?the?Fourth?Amendment?generally?would?be?so?cured.?He?described?”flagrantly?abusive”?Fourth?Amendment?violations?as?including?the?situation?in?which?”the?factors?relied?on?by?the?police?in?determining?to?make?the?arrest?were?so?lacking?in?indicia?of?probable?cause?as?to?render?official?belief?in?its?existence?entirely?unreasonable?….”?(422?U.S.?at?pp.?610-611?[45?L.Ed.2d?at?p.?431].)
FN?2.?See?also,?e.g.,?U.S.?v.?Corral-Corral?(10th?Cir.?1990)?899?F.2d?927,?in?which?the?court?stated,?”police?officers?should?be?entitled?to?rely?upon?the?probable-cause?determination?of?a?neutral?magistrate?when?defending?an?attack?on?their?good?faith?for?either?seeking?or?executing?a?warrant.”?(Id.,?at?p.?939,?italics?added.)
FN?3.?Accord,?1?LaFave,?Search?and?Seizure?(2d?ed.?1987)?section?1.3(f),?pages?76-77?(the?reasonableness?of?an?officer’s?decision?to?seek?a?warrant?”is?to?be?judged?as?of?the?time?of?warrant?application?and?thus?without?consideration?of?the?fact?that?the?magistrate?thereafter?acted?favorably?upon?the?affidavit?presented”).
FN?4.?The?Leon?court?carefully?articulated?a?rule?that?focuses?exclusively?on?the?officer’s?decision?to?submit?an?affidavit?to?a?magistrate?(see?Leon,?supra,?468?U.S.?at?p.?923?[82?L.Ed.2d?at?pp.?698-?699],?quoted?ante,?at?pp.?602-603),?and?it?thereafter?reemphasized?that?singular?focus?in?Malley,?supra,?475?U.S.?335,?345?[89?L.Ed.2d?at?pp.?281]?(quoted?ante,?at?p.?604).
FN?5.?It?is,?of?course,?proper?to?consider?under?the?third?Leon?situation?whether?the?affidavit?was?previously?rejected?by?other?magistrates?(see?Leon,?supra,?468?U.S.?at?pp.?922-923,?fn.?23?[82?L.Ed.2d?at?pp.?698-699]?[expressly?authorizing?consideration?of?such?circumstances]),?and?whether?the?affidavit?was?previously?reviewed?by?a?deputy?district?attorney?(see?U.S.?v.?Freitas?(9th?Cir.?1988)?856?F.2d?1430-1432).
FN?6.?In?this?regard,?People?v.?Johnson?(1990)?220?Cal.App.3d?742,?750-751?[270?Cal.Rptr.?70],?is?disapproved?to?the?extent?it?may?be?read?to?require?an?officer?to?exhaust?all?avenues?of?investigation?and?corroboration?at?the?risk?of?falling?within?Leon’s?third?situation.
FN?7.?As?noted?above?(ante,?p.?599),?the?magistrate?suppressed?some?of?the?evidence?seized?on?the?ground?the?warrant?was?overbroad?in?certain?respects.?Based?on?this,?defendant?repeats?verbatim?a?claim?he?advanced?in?the?Court?of?Appeal,?to?the?effect?that?all?of?the?evidence?seized?must?be?suppressed?because?under?Leon,?supra,?468?U.S.?897,?there?can?be?no?reasonable?reliance?on?a?warrant?that?is?facially?overbroad?in?part.?The?Court?of?Appeal?declined?to?address?this?point.?Accordingly,?the?issue?is?not?properly?before?us.
In?any?event,?on?the?merits,?we?would?reject?the?claim.?As?the?People?pointed?out?in?their?brief?below,?and?as?they?repeat?in?their?reply?brief?in?this?court,?none?of?the?three?cases?on?which?defendant?relies?supports?his?view,?and?two?expressly?hold?otherwise.?The?court?in?People?v.?Holmsen?(1985)?173?Cal.App.3d?1045,?1048?[219?Cal.Rptr.?598],?stated:?”Even?when?a?warrant?is?overbroad?in?part,?evidence?will?not?be?suppressed?if?it?was?seized?pursuant?to?a?portion?of?the?warrant?which?was?not.”?(Id.?at?p.?1048,?italics?in?original.)?Similarly,?the?court?in?United?States?v.?Washington?(9th?Cir.?1986)?797?F.2d?1461,?1473,?ordered?suppression?under?Leon,?supra,?468?U.S.?897,?923?[82?L.Ed.2d?677,?698-699],?of?evidence?that?was?seized?in?reliance?on?facially?overbroad?sections?of?a?warrant,?but?observed?that?”[evidence]?seized?pursuant?to?valid?portions?of?a?warrant?need?not?be?suppressed.”