SAN DIEGO DISTRICT ATTORNEY The Fourth Amendment and ...

The court will review the material in camera if a privilege (e.g.,
attorney-client, or work product, etc., privilege) is claimed. (PSC
Geothermal Services Co. v. Superior Court (1994) 25 Cal.App.4 th
1697, 1711-1712; Geilim v. Superior Court (1991) 234
Cal.App.3 rd 166, 171.)
The Court has a duty to hear and determine the applicability of a
claim of privilege, but lacks the statutory or inherent power to
require the parties to bear the cost of a special master’s services.
(People v. Superior Court [Laff] (2001) 25 Cal.4 th 703.)
A special master may not release even an inventory of the items
seized to a police officer after a privilege is invoked. (Magill v.
Superior Court (2001) 86 Cal.App.4 th 61.)
The hearing will resolve issues related to:
Suppression issues pursuant to P.C. § 1538.5 (i.e., a
“motion to suppress evidence.”)
Claims of “privilege,” pursuant to E.C. §§ 900 et seq.
© 2012 Robert C. Phillips. All rights reserved
The hearing must be held in Superior Court within three (3) days
of the service of the warrant, or as soon as possible if three days is
impracticable.
Although the statute is silent on the issue, it has been held that the
special master should determine whether a hearing is required and
give notice to the parties concerning when and where such hearing
is to be held. (Gordon v. Superior Court, (1997) 55 Cal.App.4 th
1546.)
Other Service Conditions:
Execution of the search warrant must be done during business
hours if possible. (P.C. § 1524(c)(3))
The search warrant must be served on the person who appears to
have possession or control of the documents sought. If no such
person can be found, the special master is responsible for sealing
and returning to the court any items that appear to be privileged.
(P.C. § 1524(c)(3))
Police officers may accompany the special master during the
search, but shall not participate in the search nor shall they
examine any of the items being seized except upon agreement of
405