What is the legal test for police officers seeking a warrant to search a person's home where they also know their residency?

Although this knowledge of residency was included in the affidavit of probable cause in the warrant application, the warrant still issued. Generally, police officers seeking a search warrant are not required to second guess a magistrate's decision to issue a warrant. "[I]f the officers executed the search in objectively reasonable reliance upon the validity of a search warrant issued by a neutral magistrate," evidence obtained is admissible. (People v. Bradford (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1229, 1291.) However, "[a] police officer may not shift all of the responsibility for the protection of an accused's Fourth Amendment rights to the magistrate by executing a warrant no matter how deficient it may be in describing the places to be searched and the items to be seized. An officer applying for a warrant is required to exercise reasonable professional judgment. [Citations.]" (Id. at p. 1292.)

Therefore, even if the warrant actually lacked probable cause, a trial court may suppress evidence only if the police officer knew or should have known that the magistrate found probable cause in error. (People v. Camarella (1991) 54 Cal.3d 592, 606.) This standard is quite high and an officer is entitled to rely on the magistrate's decision even where the officer reasonably believes that whether cause exists presents a close question or debatable issue. (Id. at p. 607.)