What is the test for a warrant to search a residence pursuant to a warrant?

"In reviewing a search conducted pursuant to a warrant, an appellate court inquires 'whether the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding a fair probability existed that a search would uncover wrongdoing.' [Citation.] 'The task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, commonsense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him [or her], including the "veracity" and "basis of knowledge" of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.' [Citation.] The magistrate's determination of probable cause is entitled to deferential review. [Citation.]" (People v. Carrington (2009) 47 Cal.4th 145, 161.)

Fernandez urges that the totality of the circumstances failed to establish probable cause for the issuance for the search warrant. He divides the observations of the officers up by day and argues that each day's observations were insufficient to create a fair probability that evidence of drug trafficking would be found. He also argues that many of the activities observed were consistent with innocent behavior. We consider the totality of the circumstances and conclude that the affidavit established probable cause to issue the search warrant. Hennessey's affidavit set forth in detail his training and experience in combating narcotics. A court may reasonably rely on the special experience and expertise of the affiant officer in considering whether probable cause exists. (People v. Varghese (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1084, 1103.) The warrant also included the information that during the course of a three-day surveillance, a large amount of vehicle traffic was observed at both residences, and at least one car left that location using counter-surveillance driving techniques. On each of the days of

Page 11