Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court No. INF061300 of Riverside County. Lawrence P. Best, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.)
James R. Bostwick, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Michael T. Murphy and Sabrina Y. Lane-Erwin, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
RAMIREZ, P. J.
Defendant and appellant James Russel Connelly was convicted of two counts of possession of methamphetamine for sale. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378.) Defendant requests we independently review a sealed search warrant and affidavit. We affirm the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to traverse and quash the search warrant.
I. BACKGROUND
On March 15, 2008, a search warrant was served on a residence where defendant was staying. Methamphetamine was located at multiple places inside the residence. On defendant’s motion, the trial court reviewed the sealed search warrant and affidavit. The trial court unsealed portions unrelated to anything that would identify the informant and prepared a redacted version for the People and defendant’s trial counsel. The redacted version excluded the name of the informant, the date the informant was observed purchasing narcotics at the residence, and descriptions of the vehicle the informant was observed in. The affidavit stated that the informant was observed visiting the residence and was subsequently stopped and found with narcotics. The warrant targeted the residence and its primary occupant, but did not list defendant.
Defendant moved to traverse or quash the warrant and suppress the results of the search based upon four alleged misstatements or omissions: 1) the affidavit does not name defendant; 2) the affidavit does not state the date informant was apprehended leaving the residence; 3) the affidavit does not mention if the informant had a criminal record or was promised anything in exchange for his information; and 4) the affidavit does not mention whether the informant has given reliable information in the past. The trial court denied the motion to traverse because defendant had not “made any showing of substantial misstatements.” The trial court denied the motion to quash because it found, based upon its review of the warrant in its entirety, that the warrant was supported by probable cause.
II. THE WARRANT
Defendant requests, and the People agree, that this court review the sealed proceedings, pursuant to People v. Hobbs (1994) 7 Cal.4th 948 (Hobbs), to determine if the warrant and affidavit contain material misstatements or omission, and determine whether probable cause to search was shown.
“When a defendant seeks to quash or traverse a warrant where a portion of the supporting affidavit has been sealed, the relevant materials are to be made available for in camera review by the trial court. [Citations.] The court should determine first whether there are sufficient grounds for maintaining the confidentiality of the informant’s identity. If so, the court should then determine whether the sealing of the affidavit (or any portion thereof) ‘is necessary to avoid revealing the informant’s identity.’ [Citation.] Once the affidavit is found to have been properly sealed, 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’ (if the defendant has moved to quash the warrant) or ‘whether the defendant’s general allegations of material misrepresentations or omissions are supported by the public and sealed portions of the search warrant affidavit, including any testimony offered at the in camera hearing’ (if the defendant has moved to traverse the warrant). [Citation.]” (People v. Galland (2008) 45 Cal.4th 354, 364, citing Hobbs, supra, 7 Cal.4th 948 & Evid. Code, § 915.)
Here, the trial court properly followed the hearing procedures dictated by Hobbs. The trial court implicitly found that there was sufficient grounds to protect the identity of the informant, and exercised its discretion in unsealing only a redacted version of the affidavit. We reviewed the transcript of the in camera hearing as well as the sealed warrant and affidavit. The sealed affidavit does contain some of the information defendant contended was omitted, but this information was redacted to conceal the identity of the informant. Furthermore, as the informant was intercepted after purchasing narcotics, the reliability of the information did not depend on whether prior information had been reliable or whether anything had been promised in exchange for information. Similarly, it is irrelevant to the validity of the warrant and search of the residence that defendant was not targeted by the warrant. Thus, we conclude that there were no material misstatements or omissions in the affidavit, and probable cause justified the issuance of the warrant.
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motions.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: RICHLI J., KING J.