California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from McKirdy v. Superior Court, 138 Cal.App.3d 12, 188 Cal.Rptr. 143 (Cal. App. 1982):
The basic rules of review are clear: "[I]t is well settled that ' "[t]he warrant can be upset only if the affidavit fails as a matter of law to set forth sufficient competent evidence supportive of the magistrate's finding of probable cause since it is the function of the trier of fact, not the reviewing court, to appraise and weigh evidence when presented by affidavit...." ' (Italics in original.) [Citations.] In examining the affidavit for sufficiency of the facts therein to support the magistrate's finding of probable cause, it is axiomatic that the courts are to interpret the affidavit in a common sense, nontechnical manner. [Citations.] The reviewing court will pay substantial deference to the magistrate's determination of probable cause [citation] and may sustain a search where one without a warrant would fail [citation]." (People v. Emanuel (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 205, 212-213, 151 Cal.Rptr. 44.)
We conclude that the affidavit was sufficient.
(a) Reliability and corroboration
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.