People v. Heslington
125 Cal. Rptr. 3d 740
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Defendant Brian Heslington was charged with possession of cocaine, ecstasy, and cocaine while armed, with related firearm findings from a warrant search.
- Defendant moved to quash the search warrant and suppress evidence; the warrant affidavit was partially sealed.
- The trial court tried to follow Hobbs procedures but allegedly misapplied them, leading to suppression orders and dismissal of the action.
- There was confusion over custody and location of the sealed affidavit, delaying proper Hobbs review.
- Judge King conducted Hobbs analysis, ordered disclosures, and then suppression motions were granted, but the People appealed the dismissal order.
- The appellate court reversed the dismissal due to misapplication of Hobbs, directing a new hearing with disclosed materials.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the dismissal order appealable? | People—appeal under 1238(a)(7). | Heslington—dismissal review via 1538.5 writs, not 1238. | Yes; dismissal review permitted under 1238(a)(7). |
| Did the court properly apply Hobbs to sealed affidavits? | Hobbs procedures necessary to protect informants; court followed. | Hobbs misapplied; overly disclosed sealed material negated need for step two. | Court misapplied Hobbs; step two unnecessary after substantial disclosures. |
| Should the suppression hearing proceed under standard rules rather than Hobbs after disclosures? | Because some sealed material remained, Hobbs necessary to test probable cause. | Disclosures eliminated material significance; proceed with ordinary suppression hearing. | Proceed with ordinary suppression hearing; no further Hobbs step needed. |
| Does the People’s reliance on the sealed materials affect meaningful appellate review? | Appellate review can assess sealed materials to ensure legality of warrant. | Access to sealed materials is limited; review should be constrained. | Appellate review of sealed affidavit proper; record intact for meaningful review. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Hobbs, 7 Cal.4th 948 (Cal. 1994) (informant privilege and in camera review for sealed warrants)
- People v. Foster, 274 Cal.App.2d 778 (Cal. App. 1969) (prosecution may appeal §1385 dismissal when suppression precedes reversal)
- People v. Perillo, 275 Cal.App.2d 778 (Cal. App. 1969) (support for appellate review after suppression denial)
- People v. Laiwa, 34 Cal.3d 711 (Cal. 1983) (People may petition for writ when prosecution not dismissed or may appeal if dismissed)
- People v. Bonds, 70 Cal.App.4th 732 (Cal. App. 1999) (writ review when evidence is suppressed but trial can proceed; if prosecution is forced to dismiss, appeal follows)
- People v. Galland, 45 Cal.4th 354 (Cal. 2008) (meaningful appellate review requires adequate record of sealed materials)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (U.S. 1984) (reasonableness deference to magistrate’s probable-cause finding)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (probable cause standard for warrants based on totality of the evidence)
- People v. Mikesell, 46 Cal.App.4th 1711 (Cal. App. 1996) (deference to magistrate’s probable-cause determination in close cases)