People v. Stout

In People v. Stout (1967) 66 Cal.2d 184, two defendants were stopped, and inside a bag possessed by one of the defendants, the police found "payroll checks which had been reported as stolen from a business firm, marijuana, narcotics paraphernalia and a loaded revolver with the serial number removed." ( Id. at p. 189.) The police then obtained a search warrant for the defendants' home, based on the above information, and the fact that 100 payroll checks were still missing from the burglary of the business and the officers' determination of the address of the defendants' shared residence. The defendants attacked the validity of the search warrant, claiming there was no probable cause to search the home. The California Supreme Court disagreed, explaining: "Defendants attack the sufficiency of the affidavit in support of the issuance of the search warrant pursuant to which the officers searched their residence, contending 'that it is based entirely upon hearsay and does not contain facts sufficient to show probable cause for search.' The trial court entertained a similar attack on the sufficiency of the affidavit and rejected it. . . . The instant affidavit was prepared by one of the officers involved in the investigations immediately following the arrests. It recites that defendants were arrested while in possession of marijuana and certain payroll checks; that information had been received through police sources that a large number of similar payroll checks and other materials had been stolen, and one hundred of such checks were still missing; that a relative of the defendant Culp had advised that defendants resided together at the place to be searched and that the officers hoped to discover, by a search, particularly described materials. The sufficiency of the affidavit is manifest." ( People v. Stout, supra, 66 Cal.2d at pp. 192, 193.)