People v. Hineman CA5, F079924

On May 19, 2016, Detective Enrique Lara obtained and executed a search warrant for Bryan and Zackary Hineman’s residence after observing an outdoor fenced grow and conducting a compliance check.
Lara observed ~20 marijuana plants, a medical marijuana recommendation for Zackary, three small containers of processed marijuana, and a marijuana bong; Zackary told Lara he smoked about 15 times per day.
Based on his training/experience, Lara estimated one gram per use and 2–3 pounds per plant, concluding the plants could yield ~40–60 pounds—far exceeding Zackary’s claimed personal use—and opined this discrepancy supported suspicion of illegal sales.
The search recovered processed marijuana, butane honey oil and related paraphernalia, and a digital scale; defendants were charged with multiple marijuana-related offenses.
Defendants moved to quash the warrant and suppress evidence, arguing Lara’s yield/usage estimates were reckless misstatements that, if excised (Franks), left no probable cause; the trial court granted the motion and the case was dismissed. The People appealed.
The Court of Appeal reversed the suppression and dismissal orders, holding the affidavit was facially sufficient and that the trial court erred by treating an alleged "misrepresentation" as dispositive without following Franks procedures.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the affidavit provided probable cause on its face to support the warrant	Affidavit’s facts plus officer’s training/experience gave magistrate a substantial basis to find a fair probability of illegal cultivation/sales	Lara’s yield and usage math was speculative, patently absurd, and unsupported — vitiating probable cause	Warrant was facially sufficient; magistrate could rely on Lara’s expertise and estimates; suppression order was erroneous
Whether the trial court properly found a "misrepresentation" without a Franks hearing	Trial court should have held an evidentiary Franks hearing before excising alleged false statements; People never conceded material falsity	Defendants made a Franks claim and argued alleged reckless statements could be excised without a hearing because they were plainly false	Trial court erred to the extent it relied on an alleged misrepresentation without following Franks; an evidentiary procedure is required before voiding a warrant on that basis

Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (requires preliminary showing and evidentiary hearing when affidavit contains deliberate or reckless falsehoods or omissions)
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (probable cause assessed under totality of the circumstances; fair probability standard)
People v. Carrington, 47 Cal.4th 145 (2009) (appellate review asks whether magistrate had substantial basis for probable cause)
People v. Superior Court (Corona), 30 Cal.3d 193 (1981) (preference for warrants; resolve doubtful cases in favor of issuing warrant)
United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102 (1965) (issuing magistrate’s determination entitled to deference)
People v. Nicholls, 159 Cal.App.4th 703 (2008) (magistrate may consider affiant officers’ training and experience)
United States v. Chavez-Miranda, 306 F.3d 973 (9th Cir. 2002) (issuing judges may rely on affiant’s training and experience)
People v. Hobbs, 7 Cal.4th 948 (1994) (warrant can be overturned only if affidavit fails as a matter of law)
People v. Kurland, 28 Cal.3d 376 (1980) (Franks applies to material omissions as well)