What is the effect of section 1538.5, subdivision (i) of the California Criminal Code, when a motion to suppress evidence is denied?

To eliminate the "duplicate litigation of issues and repeat testimony with the attendant result of consumption of precious court time" built into the de novo process provided in subdivision (i) (People v. Ramsey, 203 Cal.App.3d 671, 678, 250 Cal.Rptr. 309), the legislature amended section 1538.5, subdivision [213 Cal.App.3d 1191] (i), effective January 1, 1987, to provide that if no suppression

Page 307

To circumvent the restrictive evidentiary effect of amended section 1538.5, subdivision (i) in the superior court, the practice has become prevalent among defense lawyers to attempt to fully explore, even litigate, the search and seizure issue at the preliminary hearing without making a motion to suppress evidence. Indeed, if the magistrate permits it, such cross-examination results in the full exploration of the search and seizure issue at the preliminary hearing without a 1538.5 motion having been made, and allows a second full evidentiary hearing on a subsequent motion to suppress in superior court without being bound by the evidentiary restrictions of subdivision (i). Such practice undermines the purpose and effectiveness of amended subdivision (i), and allows the repeat testimony and relitigation of issues the amendment was designed to prevent (see People v. Anderson, 210 Cal.App.3d 24, 27, 258 Cal.Rptr. 125).

[213 Cal.App.3d 1192]