People v. Alvear CA2/4
B264603
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 5, 2016Background
- LAPD executed a search warrant on July 17, 2014 at Alvear’s apartment; officers found a loaded .45, ammunition, jewelry, $852, and ~5.82 grams of cocaine hidden in a false-bottom container; additional cocaine found in his vehicle.
- Warrant affidavit included a sealed "Confidential Attachment" describing a CI’s background, prior reliability, and detailed first‑hand information about Alvear’s possession of contraband; unsealed portion recited officer credentials and surveillance corroboration of residence and vehicle.
- Alvear moved under People v. Hobbs to unseal, quash and traverse the warrant (challenge sealed affidavit and seek Franks-type relief); trial court reviewed sealed material in camera and denied the motion without a formal testimonial in camera hearing.
- At bench trial Alvear was convicted of possession for sale of cocaine; firearm enhancement found not true; probation imposed and appeal filed contesting denial of Hobbs relief.
- The Court of Appeal conducted an independent review of the sealed and public materials and affirmed the trial court: the sealing was proper, no material falsehoods or recklessness were shown, and probable cause existed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the confidential attachment properly sealed under Hobbs/Evidence Code §§1041–1042? | People: sealing necessary to protect CI identity; affidavit valid on its face. | Alvear: court should unseal to test veracity and materiality of allegations. | Sealing was proper; disclosure would risk CI ID and redaction was not feasible. |
| Must the trial court conduct a formal in camera testimonial hearing under Hobbs/Luttenberger? | People: in camera review of sealed materials may suffice; formal hearing is discretionary. | Alvear: Hobbs requires a full in camera hearing and record. | Trial court did not abuse discretion by conducting paper in camera review without formal testimony here. |
| Did the sealed affidavit contain material false statements or omissions requiring a Franks hearing? | People: no demonstrated inconsistencies or reckless falsehoods in sealed material. | Alvear: sealed statements may be false or recklessly made and necessary to probable cause. | No reasonable probability of success on traverse; Franks preliminary showing not met. |
| Did the affidavit (public + sealed) establish probable cause for the search warrant? | People: CI’s multi‑year reliability, first‑hand detailed information, and surveillance corroboration suffice under Gates/totality of circumstances. | Alvear: challenges to CI reliability and basis of knowledge undermine probable cause. | Under totality of circumstances there was a fair probability contraband would be found; probable cause existed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hobbs v. Superior Court, 7 Cal.4th 948 (1994) (establishes sealing/in camera procedure balancing informant privilege and defendant’s right to challenge a warrant)
- Luttenberger v. Superior Court, 50 Cal.3d 1 (1990) (relaxes Franks preliminary showing where CI identity is at issue; outlines in camera procedures)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (requires showing of intentional or reckless falsehood and materiality to obtain a hearing challenging warrant affidavit)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (probable cause under ‘‘totality of the circumstances’’ and fair-probability standard)
- People v. Galland, 45 Cal.4th 354 (2008) (discusses Hobbs procedure and appellate review of sealed warrant materials)
- People v. Mikesell, 46 Cal.App.4th 1711 (1996) (preference to uphold warrants in doubtful or marginal probable-cause cases)
- People v. Mayer, 188 Cal.App.3d 1101 (1987) (informant’s repeated successful cooperation supports reliability)