What is the test for an overbreadth objection to a search warrant or its supporting affidavit?

These principles apply, obviously, in the Fourth Amendment context. ⁵ Accordingly, this court has held that evidence admitted without any objection on search and seizure grounds may not be challenged for the first time on appeal. (People v. Gallegos (1971) 4 Cal.3d 242, 249-250, 93 Cal.Rptr. 229, 481 P.2d 237.)

The requirement of a particularized objection also holds true in the Fourth Amendment context. For example, it has been held that a stipulation to probable cause at trial bars review of that issue on appeal, since the prosecution was deprived of the opportunity to adduce evidence below on that point. (People v. Payne (1969) 1 Cal.App.3d 361, 364-365, 81 Cal.Rptr. 635.) Similarly, an accused's lack-of-probable-cause-to-arrest objection has been held insufficient to preserve a contention that the arrest was made outside the arresting officer's jurisdiction (People v. Talley (1967) 65 Cal.2d 830, 837-838, 56 Cal.Rptr. [700 P.2d 432] 492, 423 P.2d 564), or that the officers did

Page 818

A premise common to all of the foregoing cases--none of which involve challenges to the facial validity of a search warrant or its supporting affidavit--is that an objection is necessary to give the opposing party and the court an opportunity to offer and consider, respectively, " 'additional evidence on the issue raised by the objection.' " ⁷ (People v. Payne, supra, 1 [38 Cal.3d 741] Cal.App.3d at p. 365, 81 Cal.Rptr. 635.) Conversely, if no additional evidence could have been presented had a more particularized objection been proffered, fairness has been preserved. Where the record is as complete as it would have been had a more particularized objection been made, appellate review of the ruling works no injustice to the opposing party and does not foreclose the trial court from having made a more informed ruling.

This corollary applies when an overbreadth challenge is made to a search warrant or its supporting affidavit. It is established that "[w]hether the description in the warrant of the property to be seized is sufficiently definite is a question of law on which an appellate court makes an independent judgment." (Thompson v. Superior Court (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 101, 108, 138 Cal.Rptr. 603.) Further, the reviewing court "is confined to the language of the warrant; [it] cannot speculate as to the subjective intent of the magistrate when he signed the warrant." (Id., at p. 111, 138 Cal.Rptr. 603.) Furthermore, with exceptions not here applicable, ⁸ neither a trial court nor a reviewing court may resort to facts outside the affidavit to determine whether the affidavit establishes probable cause for the issuance of the warrant. Consequently, the prosecution may not present, and the trial court may not consider, any additional testimony in defending and ruling on, respectively, an accused's overbreadth objection. Since review of the sufficiency of the warrant and its affidavit must be had without resort to such evidence, it is clear that appellant's overbreadth objection was sufficient to preserve his contentions asserted in this appeal.