What is the test for obtaining a warrant for a telephonic search warrant?

The People's argument that an emergency continued to exist as long as the chemicals remained in the house does not satisfy the imminency requirement. "[I]mminent essentially means it is reasonable to anticipate the threatened injury will occur in such a short time that it is not feasible to obtain a search warrant. Thus it is not sufficient a reasonable officer would believe a condition exists inside a dwelling which could sometime seriously [147 Cal.App.3d 653] injure persons or property. Rather the reasonable officer would have to believe the injury is likely to occur before he could obtain a search warrant." (People v. Dickson, supra, 144 Cal.App.3d at p. 1065, 192 Cal.Rptr. 897.) Here

Page 302

We are not persuaded by the People's argument that it would have taken five to eight hours to obtain a search warrant thus causing hazardous delay. Here, two and a half to three hours elapsed between the first entry and the final search and seizure, and about one hour between the time the chemist and narcotics officer inspected the house and later reentered. Assuming the officers did not have enough time to obtain a conventional search warrant they could have obtained a telephonic search warrant. An officer could have telephoned in the information and obtained permission to search within a shorter period of time than elapsed here. ² In the type of emergency where officers determine there is not adequate time to seek a conventional search warrant, the telephonic search warrant is an accessible alternative. "The use of such warrants should be encouraged where the alternative would be a warrantless search." (People v. Morrongiello (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 1, 12, 193 Cal.Rptr. 105.) Accordingly in the case before this court a reasonable officer would not believe an injury would occur in the "very short time span" (People v. Dickson, supra, 144 Cal.App.3d at p. 1065, 192 Cal.Rptr. 897) before a telephonic search warrant could be obtained.

B. THE OFFICERS' CONDUCT WAS INCONSISTENT WITH A PRIMARY MOTIVE TO SAVE LIVES AND PROPERTY