Scoma

I dissent.

Although the affidavit of the police officer is, of course, not identical with that involved in People v. Hamilton (1969) a/nte, p. 176 [ 77 Cal.Rptr. 785 , 454 P.2d 681 ], I disagree with the majority for substantially the same reasons indicated in my dissent in Hamilton, ante, at page 183.

There is an additional reason for finding the affidavit for issuance of a warrant adequate here. The 17-year-old juvenile involved was not an informant in the classic sense; he was essentially a victim. While not entirely blameless for his predicament, the minor had been furnished marijuana, methamphetamine and LSD by persons dealing in narcotics from described premises. The boy’s father discovered the narcotics and turned him over to juvenile authorities, to whom the boy revealed his source of supply.

*341 Precautions required for reliance upon information given by informants are not applicable when the knowledge is imparted to law enforcement agencies by a victim or observer of an offense. (People v. Poindexter (1958) 51 Cal.2d 142, 149 [ 330 P.2d 763 ]; People v. Guidry (1968) 262 Cal.App.2d 495, 498 [ 68 Cal.Rptr. 794 ]; People v. Gardner (1967) 252 Cal.App.2d 320, 324 [ 60…

Defendant Gwendolyn Lee Scoma was charged by information with possession of marijuana in violation of section 11530' of the Health and Safety Code. Following arraignment she moved that the information be set aside because she had been held to answer without reasonable and probable cause (Pen. Code, §995) in that the only evidence against her was obtained through execution of a search warrant based upon an affidavit insufficient on its face. 1 The motion was granted, and the People appeal from the order setting aside the information. (Pen. Code, § 123S, subd. 1.)

The’affidavit whose sufficiency is here in question stated .that the affiant, a detective sergeant engaged in the investigation of illicit narcotics traffic, had .been informed by a certain named juvenile that one “Dewey” had furnished marijuana and restricted dangerous drugs to said juvenile within the immediately preceding three weeks; that “Dewey” was presently dealing in narcotics at a certain address in the San Jose area; and that “Dewey” had previously dealt in narcotics at other premises described by the juvenile. The affidavit also alleged that affiant had been informed by the juvenile that the latter had been…