Hale

An officer signs an oath on the face of a search warrant. He swears that he has probable cause to believe the property described in the warrant can be lawfully seized and that his belief is based on the statement of probable cause contained in the warrant. Here we conclude the warrant is valid because the oath necessarily implies that the facts in the statement of probable cause are true. We therefore disagree with People v. Leonard (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 878 [ 57 Cal.Rptr.2d 845 ], which holds otherwise.

Michael Lee Hale pled no contest to one count of possession of marijuana for sale. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359.) On appeal he contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence. (Pen. Code, § 1538.5.) We affirm.

FACTS

Detective Andrew Bebón of the Pomona Police Department believed Hale had shown harmful matter to minors in violation of section 313.1. Bebón obtained a warrant to search Hale’s home for pornography and related evidence. During the search, the police found a large quantity of marijuana. Hale was never charged with a violation of section 313.

The warrant contained a “Statement of Probable Cause” in which Bebón stated:

“Statement…