Incomplete Search Warrant In California
In People v. Kurland (1980) 28 Cal.3d 376, the California Supreme Court articulated the standards which apply when a search warrant is attacked on the ground that it is incomplete.
First, the reviewing court must determine whether any of the asserted omissions are material. (Id. at p. 387.) Omissions are " 'material' " if the affidavit was rendered substantially misleading, i.e., if there was "a substantial possibility the omitted facts would have altered a reasonable magistrate's probable cause determination." (Id. at p. 385.)
If the asserted omissions are deemed immaterial and the affidavit on its face supports probable cause, the warrant usually stands. (Id. at p. 387.)
If a material fact is reasonably omitted, no sanction is imposed. (Id. at p. 388.)
If a material fact is negligently omitted, the reviewing court should view the affidavit as if it had included that fact and retest it for probable cause. (Ibid.)
Lastly, if a fact is recklessly omitted or omitted with an intent to mislead, the warrant should be quashed, regardless of whether the omission is ultimately deemed material. (Id. at p. 390.)