SAN DIEGO DISTRICT ATTORNEY The Fourth Amendment and ...

(United States v. Reeves (9 th Cir. 2000) 210 F.3 rd
1041.)
Omitting facts which would have supported a
finding of probable cause had it been included is not
grounds to traverse a warrant. (People v. Lim
(2001) 85 Cal.App.4 th 1289.)
Intentional or reckless misstatements and/or
omissions in a search warrant affidavit are material
errors whenever a magistrate would not have found
probable cause absent those errors, and may result
in potential civil liability for the affiant. (Chism v.
Washington State (9th Cir. 2011) 661 F.3 rd 380;
where had the information been reported to the
magistrate correctly, it would have been apparent
that other parties had used the plaintiffs’ previously
stolen credit card to purchase child pornography.)
For a plaintiff in a civil lawsuit to survive a
summary judgment motion where it is
alleged that there were material
misstatements or omission in a search
warrant, he must make a substantial
showing that there were misstatements
and/or omissions in the warrant affidavit
were either deliberately or recklessly
included (or, for an omission, excluded), and
that but for the misstatements or omissions,
the warrant not would have been approved
by the magistrate. Purely negligent or
unintentional mistakes in a search warrant
affidavit are irrelevant to the validity of the
warrant. In this case, the Court had no
difficulty finding that the affiant’s
misstatements and omissions were at the
very least reckless. (Ibid.)
© 2012 Robert C. Phillips. All rights reserved
The affiant’s failure to disclose that the plaintiff’s
son was in jail at the time of the issuance of the
warrant, and for over six months prior, and
therefore not only was not present in the home, but
moreover could not have been involved in a
described shooting or the storage of weapons used
in it. Plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence to
establish a genuine issue as to whether a detective’s
253