How have the courts treated the error in an affidavit and "Statement of Probable Cause" in issuing a search warrant?

The affidavit and "Statement of Probable Cause" were not so defective on their face that a well-trained officer should have recognized the error and not sought the warrant. The "Statement of Probable Cause," which set forth abundant cause for the search warrant, was accompanied by an affidavit which the officer signed under oath and which contained an incorporation clause. To outward appearances, the supporting papers were in order. The failure of the affidavit to verify under oath the truth of the statements in the "Statement of Probable Cause" was a defect that could be detected only by careful examination of the two documents by one with legal training. Even then, the failure of the officer to swear in the "Statement of Probable Cause" to the facts contained therein escaped the notice of the deputy district attorney, whose signature under the "approved as to form" caption appears at the bottom. Such approval underscores the reasonableness of the assumption by the executing officers that the supporting papers properly supported issuance of a search warrant. (See People v. Camarella, supra, 54 Cal.3d at pp. 606-607, 286 Cal.Rptr. 780, 818 P.2d 63.)

While police officers may be trained to scan the affidavit to verify the existence of probable cause to search, they are not expected to be legal scholars, grammarians or proofreaders. That the oath was on the wrong document or that the affidavit used imperfect language in attempting to incorporate the "Statement Of Probable Cause" are not the kinds of mistakes that would make the warrant "so facially deficient ... that the executing officer could not reasonably presume it to be valid." (United States v. Leon, supra, 468 U.S. at p. 923 [104 S.Ct. at p. 3421, 82 L.Ed.2d at p. 699].)