*1 Sept. [Crim. No. 23195. 1984.] PEOPLE,
THE Plaintiff and Appellant, CAMPA,
JEFFREY MICHAEL Defendant and Respondent.
Counsel John K. Van de Philibosian, and Robert Kamp H. District Attorneys, Donald J. Leonard, Kaplan Roderick W. District Deputy Attorneys, Plaintiff and Appellant. Littlefield,
Wilbur F. Sarnoff, Defender, Falick, Public Laurence M. Leslie *6 Leighton A. Scott, Defenders, and Nugent John Hamilton Public Deputy for Defendant and Respondent.
Opinion
GRODIN, J. Michael was arrested in home Jeffrey Campa Defendant pursuant warrant on (Pen. of murder and murder charges attempted Code, 664/187)1 where, and taken to a station after ex §§187 police and tensive he interrogation, made a statement in the admitting complicity references, noted,
1All unless otherwise are the Penal Code.
crime. In a
1538.5,2
pretrial
to section
the trial
proceeding pursuant
court
ordered his statement
on the
that the arrest was
suppressed
grounds
illegal
because the affidavit in
of
support
the warrant failed to establish The
cause.
trial court also ruled
in
that the statement should
event be
any
at trial
the
suppressed
because
was
conducted
violation of
interrogation
defendant’s rights under
Miranda v.
Since the alleged crime occurred to the of prior adoption Proposition (initiative measure, Election), June 1982 we have no occasion to Primary consider the of that measure impact otherwise of upon applicable principles California constitutional law. (People v. Smith 149].) Under those as we shall principles, the trial explain, court’s based suppression the ruling insufficiency correct, the warrant affidavit was and we shall affirm. 4, 1981,
On April a van a green alongside blue Camaro on pulled Figu- eroa near Avenue 41 in Los After a brief Angeles. exchange words Camaro, between a in the van and driver passenger the the van fired Camaro, passenger least four shots into the the driver and wounding a killing passenger. led, 26, 1981,
Subsequent on to the and investigation arrest deten- April tion Martinez, of Richard whose a owned van parents matching descrip- tion of one involved in Martinez was that he shooting. informed was murder, under arrest for and under he admitted his police questioning, par- incident, in the but stated ticipation Jeffrey actually had done Campa statement, the shooting. Prior to Martinez’s no had police implicating shooting. 26, 1981,
The same day, obtained an arrest warrant for April Juan Campa. Villanueva the Los Police Angeles Department completed 2Campa’s hearings. section transcripts preliminary 1538.5 motion was submitted on of two At the preliminary hearing first between requested taped defense counsel that a conversation Campa, police, played part deputy attorney district be and made the record. magistrate denied request prepared transcript because counsel had not defense *7 Thereafter, tape. During preliminary a granted. section 995 motion was the second hearing transcript a of the was admitted into evidence. conversation agreed Prior to trial it was that the court would hear a motion under section 1538.5 to suppress any resulting Campa’s allegedly illegal stipulated from It statements arrest. was transcripts by that the preliminary hearings both could be read and considered the court. motion, The granted ruling illegal, suppressed court and all section 1538.5 arrest Campa subsequently police. statements made to the
877 the affidavit in incident, The support. affidavit then explained shooting continued:
“On April affiant your executed the above Search Warrant and recovered the vehicle used in the death of Edward shooting suspects Nunez. Your affiant also arrested Richard Martinez within the residence 602 W.I.C. 187 (Murder). P.C. After his Constitutional waiving Rights Central Police Facilities Richard Martinez admitted his in the participation above crime being and also advised affiant that the investigated your person who shot actually (Martinez) Edward Nunez was known to him as Jeff Cam- who pa approximately years of Your affiant obtained a age. photograph of a known person to your affiant as Michael a male Mex Jeffrey Campa, ican with a DOB of (18 Avenue, 7-4-62 who at 2625 years) resides Carleton Los Angeles. Upon viewing Jeffrey Michael photograph Campa, Richard Martinez advised your affiant that the in the person depicted pho was the tograph same Jeff who shot Campa Edward Nunez on April from within the vehicle which Richard Martinez was driving. ...”
Attached to the affidavit were a crime a death and a report, report, photo Campa. only description on the crime is “a gunman report male Latin 17-20 years old brown hair a white T-shirt.” wearing was
Campa arrested at his home at 4:30 on approximately p.m. April 1981. He was placed a tank for holding about minutes. He was then moved to an interview room.
Villanueva testified that at some time after the interview shortly entering room, asked, Campa “Do I have a to a right lawyer?” Villanueva responded did have Campa to right but that would lawyer, Villanueva first explain him why arrested, he had been then advise him of his constitu- tional rights, then interrogate him. Villanueva then told that he was Campa under arrest in murder, connection with a that Martinez had told the police had done Campa that, had, and shooting, based on the evidence he Villanueva believed that had done the Campa shooting.
Campa Villanueva Afterwards, then listened to the Martinez tape. asked, YA, “Can I I go to if talk?” “YA” By Villanueva understood him to mean Youth Authority. to this
Up point, other than in direct whether response inquiry Campa’s he had the to a right lawyer, the had not him of advised or obtained waivers of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination or his Sixth Arizona, Amendment to counsel as right Miranda v. required by U.S. 436. Villanueva responded about the Youth Au- Campa’s question
878 that, officer,
thority by stating as a he to authority had no where police say he but if would go wished Villanueva would that a Campa request repre- sentative of the district come station to attorney’s office to the talk to police him. Campa agreed. escorted to the police back tank Campa holding 40 approximately minutes. before 6 District At- Shortly Deputy p.m., torney Peter Berman arrived at central station. asked if he
Campa would if he Berman prison replied talked. go he could be considered for but that California Youth such an Authority asked, outcome unlikely. was Berman “Do make a you want to statement “Um, at this time?” At Campa replied, yeah.” Berman’s point, suggestion, Villanueva advised of his constitutional to remain Campa right silent, and him the gave other Miranda. stated warnings by required that he understood his waived them a statement in rights and and made which he admitted in the 4 doing shooting incident. April
The trial court section granted 1538.5 motion Campa’s suppress statement fruit of as on there unlawful arrest the basis that was insuffi- cient cause for the The court probable issuance arrest warrant. noted that the affidavit from presented unreliable an untested hearsay informant. We with agree the court’s determination. 1538.5, (i),
Section
with
subdivision
endows the defendant
the right
to obtain a determination
court
to “the
of a search
validity
as
superior
review,
or seizure de novo on the basis of the evidence.” On
we
apply
same
which
standard
trial court:
order
governed
magistrate’s
“The
is
law,
affidavit,
the warrant
if
suing
may be set aside
as matter
only
does not
(Corona)
establish
Court
(People
cause.”
v. Superior
193,
334,
23],
added.)
203
italics
Cal.Rptr.
[178
We note at the outset that
was arrested at his home. It was
defendant
for this reason
obtained
warrant in this
undoubtedly
that the
an arrest
matter,
case.
As a
arrest a
general
may
officer
peace
person
“[a]
without a
warrant whenever he has reasonable
believe that the
(1971) 4
arrested has
person
felony.” (People
committed a
v. Fein
747,
583],
752
P.2d
subd.
How
Cal.Rptr.
citing
[94
§
ever,
Ramey (1976)
879 — — 732, (Welsh —, (1984) directed.”’ v. L.Ed.2d Wisconsin U.S. [80 742, (1972) 104 District Court S.Ct. United States v. U.S. quoting 2091] 297, 752, 764, 2125].) 407 313 U.S. 92 S.Ct. [32 warrant, Whether an to in the absence of a arrest is made or pursuant however, it Amend must be a of cause. The Fourth showing upon probable cause, issue, ment that “no provides probable Warrants shall but upon sup Constitution, I, or ported by Oath Affirmation . . .” California article . 13, section and Penal Code section 813 contain similar provisions. An arrest warrant which is not of cause showing a supported probable fail, must and an (People arrest made to it is v. Sesslin illegal. pursuant (1968) 418, 409, 68 321].) Cal.2d 424-425 439 P.2d Cal.Rptr. [67
“In the of an affidavit for the determining sufficiency of issuance a . . . warrant the of the test cause probable approximately same as that warrant, to an a . . . whether applicable namely, arrest without the facts contained in the affidavit are such as would lead a man of ordinary believe, entertain, caution or to a prudence strong and conscientiously suspicion 1 guilt (Skelton (1969) v. Court accused.” Superior 144, 613, Cal.3d 485],)3 460 P.2d Cal.Rptr. [81
“A cause, . . . warrant is issued without and therefore probable violation constitutional when the affidavit which it is proscriptions, based contains no competent evidence of the finding sufficient support magistrate. The indicated and suffi questions competency [Citations.] are ciency questions (1969) law. v. Scoma (People [Citations.]” Cal.2d 419].) 455 P.2d Cal.Rptr. question to be case, therefore, resolved in this is whether the here contained affidavit sufficient evidence to a finding of cause. support probable information,
When an affidavit is based upon any analysis hearsay of the competency and of the evidence involves con sufficiency necessarily siderations of the of the of his credibility informant and value probative information. We have “for stated that an affidavit based on informant’s hearsay statement to be sufficient the issuance of . . . legally support warrant, two (1) must be met: the affidavit must requirements allege informant’s conclusionary statement than language is factual rather and must establish that the informant with spoke personal knowledge statement; matters contained in such must contain some affidavit underlying the war- magistrate issuing which factual information from warrant, 3Skelton involved search but the apply same standards of wheth Sesslin, (See er the warrant is issued for an arrest for a search. or 418, 424.) rant can or his conclude that the was credible reasonably informant rel iable.'’ v. Hamilton 179-180 (People 681], added.) italics *10 of the United
Hamilton and cases have relied decisions upon subsequent test. States Court an identical Supreme articulating essentially two-part 723, (See, 108, (1964) 114 L.Ed.2d Aguilar v. Texas 378 U.S. e.g., [12 410, 728-729, 1509]; (1969) U.S. 84 S.Ct. v. United States 393 Spinelli mistake, 641-642, 637, 584].) 413 It would be a L.Ed.2d 89 S.Ct. [21 however, to derived from solely that California law this area is suppose and Court Rath Aguilar and their United States Spinelli Supreme progeny. er, 413 “Aguilar’s test” 393 U.S. (Spinelli, supra, p. two-pronged [21 of 642]) L.Ed.2d at shorthand articulation has convenient p. provided hearsay California law in the area of previously established principles affidavits. Scoma, 337, 332,
In
this court
v.
71 Cal.2d
for
People
supra,
example,
cited
and
relied
earlier California cases
Aguilar
but also
Spinelli
upon
is based
that “a warrant
not stand ...
if the affidavit
proposition
may
to state facts from
information
an informant and fails
provided by
which the
could
conclude that such information
magistrate
reasonably
uncorro-
reliable.”
that the
Pre-Aguilar
establishing
California decisions
borated information of
does not
untested informants
supply
either for
or search include
issuance of a warrant or for a warrantless arrest
36];
(1956)
Willson v.
v.
People
Court
In supra, as in Martinez is described as satisfied the first test. Aguilar’s two-part part knowledge who with admitted in the crime spoke personal participant law, how is insufficient as a matter The affidavit Campa’s culpability. rea ever, could in that it information from which magistrate no provides information about credible or that his conclude that Martinez was sonably was reliable. Campa with murder. charged
Martinez is described as an arrested only suspect contacts with Mar- had There is no indication that the had ever police prior States (see v. United tinez his record for Jones establishing reliability 881 257, 697, 725, 707-708, 362 U.S. S.Ct. 78 270-271 233]) A.L.R.2d is there information implicating nor corroborative any (see from Spinelli, sources or from independent police investigation 644]; supra, U.S. at 417-418 L.Ed.2d at Alexander v. Su- p. pp. Court perior (1973) 395 [107
1131]). factual Finally, the affidavit no provides background about the under were made to circumstances which Martinez’s statements allow make or the magistrate reliability an informed evaluation of his credibility his information. Amos,
In People v. and Ovalle v. supra, Superior Cal.App.2d Court, on Cal.App.2d custody drug informants *11 charges gave information as the source of contraband. others implicating In that determining probable such information insufficient provided a search, for warrantless observed: such Amos court as “[information here provided to at serves a simply point finger particular suspicion person results in or ordinarily surveillance investigation suspect. If the investigation or observation of the tends to confirm the suspect report of the informant whose been a lawful search reliability has not established or arrest bemay made provided combined information reasonable gives cause therefor. But in observed the instant case the officers no [Citation.] act or conduct on the of the defendant that tended he part to indicate was violating law. . . . To hold that the information here [Citation.] [1] furnished by was sufficient to establish reasonable cause would [the arrestee] inbe effect to accord a nonreliable informant who was in toils of the law a greater degree reliability than is attributed to such informant ” who is not (Amos, thus supra, encumbered. 181 at 508- pp. Cal.App.2d 509.) Ovalle, 760,
In 202 supra, Justice Tobriner observed “rea- Cal.App.2d sonable cause . . . cannot be based obtained from solely upon a previously unknown informant and informant ... fact that the has been (Id., arrested and in custody is adds at nothing reliability.” his p.
The People that argue credibility Martinez’s is established indications that he his in spoke against interest in himself the shoot- penal implicating This contention, however, ing. analysis. fails to withstand critical The source of the theory that statements an informant’s against penal interest are a reliable to establish cause for search or sufficiently probable arrest is Chief Justice in United States v. Harris Burger’s plurality opinion 573, 723, 403 U.S. 91 S.Ct. “Admis- [29 2075]: crime, sions of interests, like their own carry admissions against proprietary indicia of at least to credibility—sufficient support finding cause to search.” While this has some it cannot proposition logical appeal, be without consideration of the in which the applied mechanically setting admission There is a vast difference between an informant who appears. comes in off the street to confess in a crime and complicity identify his confederate, who, evidence, and one with identifies caught inculpatory someone else as the principal culprit.
Information received from sources who are themselves the focus of pend criminal ing or “All familiar charges investigations inherently suspect. with law enforcement know that the reflect their they may tips provide vulnerability to or involve may braggadocio, self- pressure revenge, or the exculpation, v. Kurland hope compensation.” (People 213], and cases cited therein.) Justice Harlan made similar in observations Harris, dissenting 403 U.S. which he stated: “I opinion am inclined to the view . . not magistrates may . properly predicate determination that an unnamed confidant is credible the bare fact that ” (Id., by giving information he also committed a having confessed crime. 741].)4 L.Ed.2d at p. p. *12 Harris,
The rationale of Justice in lies in the no- theory supra, Burger’s tion that rational are to make false statements their people unlikely against far, own interests. So But rationale breaks penal is this logic compelling. down in a situation where in a declarant seeks police custody exculpate himself by another implicating suspect.
We have considered a analogous similar in an context. problem California law that evidence of declarations recognizes against interest penal 1230; (Evid. Code, be admitted as an to the rule. may hearsay exception § (1964) 841, v. 389 P.2d People Spriggs Cal.Rptr. [36 377].) context, But in this we have that the trustworthiness of recognized such is limited and that the should not hearsay apply declarations exception to collateral interest. v. (People assertions within declarations against penal 296].) Leach In Cal.Rptr. “col of the characterizes such light unreliability of which high probability id., 439-440, (see 16), lateral assertions” 15 & we have con at fns. pp. of state- any strued “to be to evidence hearsay exception inapplicable Scoma, but, an 4Harris “[w]hether involved an unnamed informant as we observed showing probable of cause is informant is named or unnamed immaterial insofar as the is reliability. ques concerned . . . The except identity as to the extent that his bears his tion, named, is reliable. whether or not the whether his information [Cita informant is (Scoma, 6.) p. 71 Cal.2d at fn. tion.]” to the inter- disserving not ment or of a statement itself specifically portion (Id., 441.) of the ests declarant.” p. is illus- Shipe 701] 49 Cal.App.3d case, confessing partici-
trative. In that two declarants made statements killing. the actual in a but defendant murder pation accusing Shipe defendant, that, such “declarations held court to be admissible against such reliability; with indicia interest” must be “clothed against penal to authorities is made indicia of are where the declaration reliability lacking offense . . . and with a serious charged after the declarant has been arrested where, that the de- here, in the sense and as the statement is exculpatory offense greater clarant blamed a for the commission has coparticipant (Id., while at p. to some lesser admitting degree.” complicity trial, In criminal the appli the two situations differ. Admittedly, Hence, the cable standard is a reasonable doubt. beyond question proof must be consid admissibility hearsay testimony potentially devastating In the warrant ered within the context of standard exacting proof. situation, contrast, of the lesser light the evidence is to be evaluated Nonetheless, area standard of in the hearsay cause. precedents interest may reminder that declarations provide persuasive against penal Thus, which contain an approach and unreliable information. self-serving would find a because it incor solely declarant’s statement credible wholly porates admission of criminal is inadequate. culpability
The affidavit information relevant to Mar here contained no factual tinez’s other on a murder credibility charge than that he was in custody “admitted that he had . .” It is obvious in the . . . crime. . participation *13 that a murder im falsely in have reasons to suspect custody might that such ah another as the murderer. While we also surmise plicate may truth, be arrestee be tell the to do so would might merely motivated to which, included, if have made the affi speculation might as to information The davit that no information appeared. sufficient. fact remains such affidavit itself to conclude that Martinez’s no basis which provided upon with the information was credible and it failed to the provide magistrate circumstances, in setting which Martinez’s statement was made. Under such we must with the trial court that the affidavit did not agree probable provide cause for the issuance of a warrant as a matter of law. a
This is not to that in all such the statement of say coparti cases in in criminal should be activity disregarded cipant implicating suspect be made may of a warrant. Admissions finding cause for issuance “indicia under enhanced. Other circumstances in which their is credibility or corroborative veracity such as the arrestee’s record for reliability,” evidence obtained buttress the of an independently may credibility arrestee’s statement. Alternatively, the affidavit may provide background the describing circumstances under which the informant’s statement was made. In cases, some this contextual information itself will a suf- provide ficient basis to support conclusion that the declarant’s information is cred- ible. This affidavit no provided such information.
Nor would Martinez’s evidence alone have been necessarily insufficient had the magistrate had the to examine Martinez opportunity and personally decide, himself, whether he Skelton appeared reliable. v. Superior Court, Martinez, in is a case Like point. informant in Skelton was in Martinez, Like police custody. he a confeder- implicated However, ate. there Rather, was no in hearsay affidavit Skelton. the arres- tee-informant before the personally appeared “who magistrate consequently had the full opportunity to observe his and demeanor and to appearance him question relevant if regarding any matter he considered this necessary to assure himself of the (Id., 152.) affiant’s credibility.” p.
This distinction is crucial. We stated in Skelton: “The entire thrust of Aguilar and the cases it is to following ability insure the actual magistrate make an or independent judgment the existence not of prob- able cause remains The rule that the unimpaired. factual for be- grounds lieving informer be hearsay communicated to the manda- magistrate is if tory is, fact, probable cause to be determined a neutral and ‘by detached magistrate instead of the officer in the often being judged by engaged com- petitive Here, however, enterprise out crime.’ ferreting [Citation.] critical affidavit is not based on unsworn but hearsay, statements made oath, under whose origin clearly personal knowledge obser- vation of the (Id., case, affiant.” 1 Cal.3d at In con- p. Campa’s by trast, “the critical affidavit” is based on hearsay, unsworn obtained out of presence an officer magistrate “by in the often engaged compet- itive out crime.” enterprise ferreting “
(14) We have noted that in a it not ‘[although may case be particular easy determine when an affidavit demonstrates the existence of probable cause, the resolution of doubtful or cases in this area should be marginal ” largely determined to be accorded to warrants.’ preference (People *14 (Corona), v. Superior 193, 203, Court 30 supra, Cal.3d United quoting (1965) 102, 684, 689, States v. Ventresca 380 85 U.S. 109 L.Ed.2d [13 741].) S.Ct. This is not such a case. The affidavit here is too thin to simply to give body this presumption.
Hence, we with agree the trial court’s determination this must case that the warrant was issued without and that Campa’s
885 addition, arrest extra was In we that illegal. agree Campa’s must statement, arrest, judicial result of was properly obtained as a his unlawful 786, (1977) excluded. v. 18 889 (People Cal.Rptr. Cal.3d DeVaughn [135 872],)5 558 P.2d we were
Because have determined that the charges against motion, dismissed as not reach properly a result of his section 1538.5 we do of the de question Although trial court’s on the Miranda issue. ruling fendant raised a of of Fifth substantial the violation his Amendment question 698, (see rights (1977) v. 150 Honeycutt Cal.3d Cal.Rptr. [141 1050]), 570 P.2d we are not must reiterate the rule that such questions (1967) reviewable normally (People Beasley v. pretrial. Cal.App.2d 71, 77 485].) Cal.Rptr. [58
Defendant’s efforts to statements on extrajudicial suppress proceeded two fronts. His section motion based the alle- 1538.5 was upon properly gation insufficient, that the warrant under which he was arrested was that unlawful, his arrest was therefore and that the confession obtained as a result of that arrest should be suppressed.
Defendant also on the basis his Fifth sought suppression independent Amendment right against self-incrimination had been violated. This claim motion, cannot be the basis of a section 1538.5 since section 1538.5 is limited to search and seizure issues. Superior (Zolnay) v. Court (People 1390].) 733-734 Rath er, a pretrial motion to Miranda suppress statements obtained violation of (Id., rights is regarded as a common properly law motion. evidentiary p. because, distinction is significant unlike a section 1538.5 motion to on
suppress,
ruling
a common law motion
not
reviewable
normally
pretrial. Sound
policy
barrier since
order
supports
procedural
“[a]n
suppressing evidence ...
is the
of an order
equivalent
objec-
sustaining
evidence,
tion to the same
subject
and is
the same
These
procedural rules.
4, 1981,
5The
April
crime at issue here
on
place
took
well before the effective date of
reason,
Proposition
June
8 on
For this
no
presents
opportunity
1982.
this case
dis
Smith,
cussion
exclusionary
Proposition
(People
of the
light
supra,
rule in
v.
8.
251, 262.)
And,
above,
insufficiency
as
provide
noted
such an
affidavit as involved here
probable cause for issuance of
warrant
principle
an arrest
was a well-established
Califor-
Texas,
prior Aguilar
nia law even
We
U.S. 108.
therefore have no occasion
effect,
to consider
any,
if
United
Supreme
States
Court’s decision in Illinois v.
Gates
In the instant having granted defendant’s section 1538.5 motion, the trial court dismissed the action of its motion own to pursuant section The 1385. is taken under People’s section subdivision appeal (a)(7), which by its terms is limited to dismissals based upon statutory Thus, motions. review suppression our is limited to scope appellate the correctness of the court’s section 1538.5 ruling.
The is affirmed. judgment
Bird, J., Broussard, J., J.,* J., Reese, C. concurred. Reynoso, KAUS, J. reluctance, dissent with since I realize that in the fully long I run it will make little difference whether this aborts because of prosecution a defective arrest warrant or the obvious vio Miranda-Honeycutt painfully lation disclosed by record. brief,
In I believe that the on the heavily court’s draws too law opinion relating rule, declarations to the against interest as exception hearsay while insufficient giving facts of this case and the weight particular limited very for which purpose Martinez’ identification was used. v. Leach P.2d condemned the use of nondisserving portions 296] of declarations against trial, interest at on the issue of Here we are concerned with guilt. an arrest and justifying only our of contact with the point exception to the rule is the notion that when hearsay commonsense make state- people interest, ments which are that clearly their the chance are against they telling the truth is comparatively good.
What the majority when in the about declarants ignores talking abstract others, who seek police custody to exculpate by implicating themselves is that in case the material furnished the him permitted magistrate infer that Martinez had admitted The that was to admit. everything warrant, which was in the report, affidavit in incorporated support contained a statement from a “citizen” was the informant that it passenger van, driver, in the not the who done had was magistrate shooting. warrant, also informed issued another had previous magistrate, *Assigned by Chairperson of the Judicial Council. *16 van,
resulted in the of the the arrest of Martinez. From recovery as well as these facts alone it was the driver of is inferrable that Martinez reasonably the Thus van—which is what Martinez admitted after his arrest. precisely does not the nature of his reliability incriminating on depend solely admission but of the admission corre- rests also on the fact that the extent to the in the as sponds shooting, of his actual involvement apparent degree reflected in information obtained the independent by police. Leach,
There no identifi is that under Martinez’ question extrajudicial cation of as the because it would not be admissible was triggerman not to the the declarant.” v. “specifically disserving (People interest of Leach, however, noted, 15 Cal.3d at As we are not already p. which, concerned with an at trial if be statement admitting incriminating lieved, could send our whether the a man to sole concern is state prison: context, ment, viewed in is sufficient to rise to cause make give probable I arrest. Thus would that if to the grant submitted nothing magistrate negatived the that Martinez was himself possibility trying exculpate by as the the warrant not implicating Campa triggerman, should have issued.1 That, however, not the was case. could infer from all that magistrate was, was indeed, driver, submitted to him that Martinez only precisely as he had admitted. His as an reliability informant was at least as as great who, that of the reason, narcotics user typical whatever has correctly fingered other users or dealers in the while few would stake their lives past: on the of accuracy his next bit of news about one we of his fellow junkies, have held time after time that as as he with long purports speak personal knowledge, his is sufficient to authorize of say-so the issuance a warrant. (1969) De (People 21-22 Santiago 353].) P.2d concession, making 1In appear I to differ with con Professor LaFave whose views
cerning veracity persons position good sanguine in Martinez’ are a deal than more true, course, those of the court: “It typically provide is that these individuals they by after have been apprehended apparent and after it is to them that said, police already might know of their own involvement in the serious offense. It be as context, the Supreme Court accomplice said of accusations in another that this information ‘inevitably is suspect, given recognized . . . motivation to shift blame onto others.’ (20 1620).] v. United States U.S. 123 88 S.Ct. This [Bruton is concern, legitimate danger cause for but it is well to note the at- that the is less here than in setting trial speaking. thing, about which the Court was For one a fabrication false purporting likely accusations to involve others in one’s to occur criminal activities is less (Indeed, on spur following may moment arrest than that later occasion. it general be stated proposition ‘spontaneous’ against penal as that a interest admission another, deserving reliance.) more likely For the effort to is more to amount ‘shift blame’ to an accomplices overstatement of the influence and control wielded actual than the all, misstatements, naming persons who not involved even if were in fact and these occur, they likely de bearing directly upon are not to distort the facts (Fns. (LaFave, 3.3, 527-528.) omitted.) pp. termination.” Search and Seizure § I would reverse.
Mosk, J., concurred.