Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Solano County Super. Ct. No. FCR 225817
Pollak, J.
Defendant Cindy Lee Harris appeals a judgment convicting her of possession for sale of methamphetamine. The evidence against defendant was seized pursuant to a search warrant based upon information provided by a confidential informant and contained in the sealed portion of the supporting affidavit. Following an in camera hearing, the trial court found that the affidavit should remain sealed to protect the identity of the confidential informant and that defendant’s motion to quash the warrant should be denied. Defendant asks that we review the trial court’s findings pursuant to the procedures set forth in People v. Hobbs (1994) 7 Cal.4th 948 (Hobbs). We have reviewed the sealed affidavit and find no error in the court’s decision. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.
Factual and Procedural Background
Defendant was charged by amended information with one count of possession for sale of methamphetamine in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11378. The following evidence was presented at trial:
On June 2, 2005, Detective Jausiah Jacobson executed a search warrant of defendant’s home. Defendant acknowledged that there was methamphetamine in the house and directed Jacobson to the location where it was recovered. Officers seized 4.25 grams of methamphetamine, a glass pipe, two scales and over $100 in cash. Jacobson opined that the amount of methamphetamine recovered was the equivalent of at least 40 dosage units. Defendant told Jacobson that she possessed the methamphetamine with the intention of providing it to others. She said that “she had a female friend who . . . she wished not to name, and that this female would request [defendant] to provide her with methamphetamine. From that, [defendant] would acquire methamphetamine from sources that she knew, pay for that methamphetamine from that source, then later supply that methamphetamine to this . . . female, and sell it to her at a higher price.” Based on the amount of methamphetamine recovered, the scales in her home and defendant’s admission, Jacobson believed defendant was possessing the narcotics for sale.
Defendant was found guilty as charged and placed on three years’ probation. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
Shortly thereafter, the court found that defendant had violated her probation. Defendant’s probation was reinstated with the condition that she serve 365 days in county jail. Although defendant filed a timely notice of appeal from this order, she has raised no arguments on appeal relating to the probation violation proceedings.
Discussion
Defendant’s sole request on appeal is that we review the record to determine the validity of the search warrant. The parties agree that our review is governed by the procedure described in Hobbs, supra, 7 Cal.4th 948.
In Hobbs, supra, 7 Cal.4th at page 957, the court addressed the “inherent tension between the public need to protect the identities of confidential informants, and a criminal defendant's right of reasonable access to information upon which to base a challenge to the legality of a search warrant.” The court concluded that a search warrant affidavit may be sealed if necessary to protect a confidential informant’s identity, but that, in such a case, a defendant cannot reasonably be expected to make the preliminary showing required to initiate a challenge to the warrant. (Id. at pp. 971-972.) The court advised that certain procedures should be followed “to strike a fair balance between the People’s right to assert the informant’s privilege and the defendant’s discovery rights.” (Id. at p. 972.)
On a properly noticed motion, the trial court should hold an in camera hearing, from which the defendant and his or her counsel must be excluded. The trial court should “examine the affidavit for possible inconsistencies or insufficiencies regarding the showing of probable cause, and inform the prosecution of the materials or witnesses it requires. The materials will invariably include such items as relevant police reports and other information regarding the informant and the informant’s reliability. [¶] Furthermore, because the defendant’s access to the essence of the affidavit is curtailed or possibly eliminated, the lower court may, in its discretion, find it necessary and appropriate to call and question the affiant, the informant, or any other witness whose testimony it deems necessary to rule upon the issues.” (Hobbs, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 973.)
At the hearing, the trial court must first determine “whether sufficient grounds exist for maintaining the confidentiality of the informant’s identity. It should then be determined whether the entirety of the affidavit or any major portion thereof is properly sealed, i.e., whether the extent of the sealing is necessary to avoid revealing the informant’s identity.” (Hobbs, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 972.) “[I]f the affidavit is found to have been properly sealed and the defendant has moved to quash the search warrant [citation], the court should proceed to determine whether, under the ‘totality of the circumstances’ presented in the search warrant affidavit and the oral testimony, if any, presented to the magistrate, there was ‘a fair probability’ that contraband or evidence of a crime would be found in the place searched pursuant to the warrant.” (Id. at p. 975.)
A reviewing court’s inquiry is limited to whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to unseal the sealed affidavit and quash the warrant. (Hobbs, supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 976.) For that purpose, we review the entire record, including the sealed materials. (Id. at pp. 976-977.)
We have reviewed the sealed affidavit and find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in upholding the sealing of the affidavit and in finding no reasonable probability that defendant would prevail on a motion to quash the warrant or suppress evidence.
Defendant’s attorney requests that we “unseal the materials to appellate counsel (redacting any information concerning informant’s identification) to permit a focused brief on whatever issues, if any, are raised by the sealed affidavit and testimony,” or alternatively that we “direct appellate counsel to brief whatever specific points are actually placed at issue by the sealed materials.” Having conducted the review as required by Hobbs, we find no need for or basis on which to order additional briefing.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: McGuiness P. J., Jenkins J.