What is the difference between a mimeographed warrant and a night search warrant?

The People's contention also ignores the fact that the statute 'requires that the magistrate must 'insert a direction' in the warrant in order to authorize a night search. (Pen.Code, 1533.) When a warrant from covering both options is used, the failure of the magistrate to mark the form appropriately cannot be held to be equivalent to such insertion.' (Call v. Superior Court, supra, 266 Cal.App.2d at p. 164, 71 Cal.Rptr. at p. 547.)

The People cite People v. Weitzer, 269 Cal.App.2d 274, 75 Cal.Rptr. 318, in support of its position. The case is not in point, as endorsed on the warrant there clearly appeared the words 'This warrant may be executed at night.' (p. 286, 75 Cal.Rptr. p. 326.) Moreover, the court cited, with apparent approval, People v. Mills, supra, 251 Cal.App.2d 420, 422, 59 Cal.Rptr. 489.

It is impossible to understand the People's theory that the fact that the warrant in People v. Mills, supra, was on a mimeographed form and those in the instant case were not is some manner of indication that the magistrate had exercised his discretion and authorized their use at night. Likewise, there is no merit to the contention that as there is no evidence that the householder looked at the warrants to determine whether they could be served at night, that fact validated the warrants for night search.