Search warrants - Revision history

Sysop: /* Financial records */

2026-03-04T03:02:12Z

Financial records

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:02, 4 March 2026
Line 352:		Line 352:

	Evidence obtained in violation is inadmissible. Gov. Code 7489.		Evidence obtained in violation is inadmissible. Gov. Code 7489.

			Burrows v. Superior Court (1974) 13 Cal.3d 238

			People v. Blair (1979) 25 Cal.3d 640

			Bank may disclose to customers a search warrant unless non-disclosure order. Gov. Code 7475.

Sysop at 14:49, 3 March 2026

2026-03-03T14:49:45Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:49, 3 March 2026
Line 345:		Line 345:

	PC1546(k): “Specific consent” means consent provided directly to the government entity seeking information, including, but not limited to, when the government entity is the addressee or intended recipient or a member of the intended audience of an electronic communication. Specific consent does not require that the originator of the communication have actual knowledge that an addressee, intended recipient, or member of the specific audience is a government entity.		PC1546(k): “Specific consent” means consent provided directly to the government entity seeking information, including, but not limited to, when the government entity is the addressee or intended recipient or a member of the intended audience of an electronic communication. Specific consent does not require that the originator of the communication have actual knowledge that an addressee, intended recipient, or member of the specific audience is a government entity.


			==Financial records==

			California Right to Privacy Act. Gov Code 7460 to 7493.

			Evidence obtained in violation is inadmissible. Gov. Code 7489.

Sysop: /* CalECPA */

2026-01-12T02:51:01Z

CalECPA

@@ Line 325: / Line 325: @@
 ==CalECPA==
 ===Specific consent===
 PC1546(k): “Specific consent” means consent provided directly to the government entity seeking information, including, but not limited to, when the government entity is the addressee or intended recipient or a member of the intended audience of an electronic communication. Specific consent does not require that the originator of the communication have actual knowledge that an addressee, intended recipient, or member of the specific audience is a government entity.

Sysop at 02:40, 12 January 2026

2026-01-12T02:40:25Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:40, 12 January 2026
Line 323:		Line 323:

	SEARCH WARRANTS: The review of search warrants is within the course and scope of employment for Deputy District Attorneys. Pursuant to Government Code Section 825, the County shall defend any employee in the bargaining unit against whom a claim is made, or a lawsuit is filed, arising out of their review of search warrants as part of their employment with the County. Where the County provides a defense under this section and a subsequent judicial determination is made that at the time of the act giving rise to the liability the employee acted in bad faith, or acted with actual malice, the County may seek reimbursement for defense fees		SEARCH WARRANTS: The review of search warrants is within the course and scope of employment for Deputy District Attorneys. Pursuant to Government Code Section 825, the County shall defend any employee in the bargaining unit against whom a claim is made, or a lawsuit is filed, arising out of their review of search warrants as part of their employment with the County. Where the County provides a defense under this section and a subsequent judicial determination is made that at the time of the act giving rise to the liability the employee acted in bad faith, or acted with actual malice, the County may seek reimbursement for defense fees

			==CalECPA==

			===Specific consent===

			PC1546(k): “Specific consent” means consent provided directly to the government entity seeking information, including, but not limited to, when the government entity is the addressee or intended recipient or a member of the intended audience of an electronic communication. Specific consent does not require that the originator of the communication have actual knowledge that an addressee, intended recipient, or member of the specific audience is a government entity.

Sysop: /* Sealing */

2026-01-12T02:11:55Z

Sealing

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:11, 12 January 2026
Line 299:		Line 299:
	==Sealing==		==Sealing==

	County of Orange v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 759		County of Orange v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 759 about sealing of entire warrant



	People v. Hobbs (1994) 7 Cal.4th 948 - sealing of informant		People v. Hobbs (1994) 7 Cal.4th 948 - sealing of informant

Sysop: /* Jurisdiction */

2026-01-11T05:21:07Z

Jurisdiction

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:21, 11 January 2026
Line 125:		Line 125:

	349k752Particular courts, judges, or magistrates		349k752Particular courts, judges, or magistrates

			California state courts exercise no jurisdiction in other states. Accordingly, a magistrate in another state must sign a search warrant for evidence located in that state's jurisdiction. For example, an officer seeking a search warrant for evidence in Arizona must have an Arizona magistrate issue the search warrant.

	==Execution of warrant==		==Execution of warrant==

Sysop: /* Jurisdiction */

2026-01-11T05:07:47Z

Jurisdiction

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:07, 11 January 2026
Line 123:		Line 123:

	349k915 - Officer from different jurisdiction		349k915 - Officer from different jurisdiction

			349k752Particular courts, judges, or magistrates

	==Execution of warrant==		==Execution of warrant==

Sysop: /* Jurisdiction */

2026-01-11T05:07:23Z

Jurisdiction

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:07, 11 January 2026
Line 121:		Line 121:

	People v. Dantzler (1988) 206 Cal.app.3d 289 - Good faith exception		People v. Dantzler (1988) 206 Cal.app.3d 289 - Good faith exception

			349k915 - Officer from different jurisdiction

	==Execution of warrant==		==Execution of warrant==

Sysop: /* Sealing */

2026-01-11T04:26:59Z

Sealing

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:26, 11 January 2026
Line 302:		Line 302:

	People v. Acevedo (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1040 - Hobbs dealing of wiretap		People v. Acevedo (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1040 - Hobbs dealing of wiretap

			Penal Code section 954 deals with confidentiality of witness and victim information, such as address, telephone number, driver license number, social security number, date of birth, place of employment, etc.

	==Medical records==		==Medical records==

Sysop: /* Affidavit */

2025-05-24T05:44:53Z

Affidavit

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:44, 24 May 2025
Line 62:		Line 62:

	Probable Cause		Probable Cause

			Your affiant knows by training and experience that victims and suspects involved in domestic violence and stalking incidents exhibit similar
			behaviors in past and current relationships. These behaviors are often documented in letters, journals, notes, emails, photographs, videos,
			and pictures. These items are often stored digitally on computers, disks, phones, or other electronic storage devices. Domestic violence victims and suspects also conduct Internet research regarding emotional and psychological issues of relationships regarding domestic violence
			and/or stalking. This research is often conducted through books and Internet searches. The cell phone that belongs to (victim or suspect’s
			name here) is capable of conducting these actions.

	Concluding Paragraph		Concluding Paragraph