Galland

Anthony Andrew Galland pleaded guilty to drug charges after the trial court denied his motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant based on information furnished by a confidential informant. At the request of police, a magistrate had sealed the affidavit supporting the warrant in order to protect the informant’s identity. When Galland moved to discover the sealed materials, traverse and quash the warrant, and suppress the evidence obtained from the purportedly illegal search, the trial court proceeded to rule on (and deny) these defense motions without first conducting an in camera review of the sealed materials.

The trial court’s refusal to conduct the in camera review was a clear abuse of discretion under People v. Hobbs (1994) 7 Cal.4th 948 [30 Cal.Rptr.2d 651, 873 P.2d 1246 ] (Hobbs). Consequently, we reverse the order denying these defense motions, and conditionally reverse the judgment to allow the court to conduct in camera proceedings in accordance with the guidelines set forth in Hobbs.

Facts

On August 9, 2001, a trial court judge issued a search warrant based on Detective David Hankins’s affidavit of support for a probable cause finding…