In In re Arron C. (1997) 59 Cal. App. 4th 1365, the probation department's computer showed that the defendant was subject to a search condition that had, in fact, expired. (At p. 1368.) The reason for the error was not explained. A probation officer conveyed the erroneous information to the searching police officer. Applying Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1 [131 L. Ed. 2d 34], United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 [82 L. Ed. 2d 677], People v. Downing, supra, 33 Cal. App. 4th 1641, and People v. Tellez, 128 Cal. App. 3d 876, the majority refused to suppress the evidence. The majority effectively concluded that the probation officer was the source of the error, and reasoned that such officers are analogous to the court employees in Evans who ordinarily have no stake in the outcome of particular criminal prosecutions and for whom the threat of suppression of evidence holds no particular deterrent. (In re Arron C., supra, at p. 1371.)