Theilen

People v. Theilen

Good Law
64 Cal. App. 4th 326·74 Cal. Rptr. 2d 899·98 D.A.R. 5661
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 29, 1998F026190California4,552 words

Opinion

Opinion

Certified for Partial Publication [*]

BUCKLEY, Associate Justice.

In this opinion, we discuss the discrepancy between our two high courts on a significant constitutional issue and conclude that the California Supreme Court has not employed the safeguards mandated by the United States Supreme Court regarding in camera suppression motions. Nevertheless, as a court of inferior jurisdiction, we are constrained to follow our own Supreme Court's law on the subject and will affirm. [1]

On November 16, 1995, Kern County Municipal Court Judge H.A. Staley issued a warrant authorizing the search of defendant's residence and surrounding buildings located at 3009 Peerless Avenue and codefendant Richard Ellis's residence and surrounding buildings located at 100 Patti Avenue. In support of the request for issuance of the warrant, Judge Stalely received two oral affidavits. Bakersfield Police Department Detective Scott Tunnicliffe averred in open court that he had been contacted by a confidential citizen informant (CI) who wished to provide him with information regarding defendant's manufacture of methamphetamine. The CI identified a photograph of defendant as the same person regarding whom…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.