California Search Warrants – 7 Key Things to Know

In California, a search warrant is issued by a judge and authorizes law enforcement to search a person, a residence, a vehicle, a place of business, or any other specified area suspected of containing evidence of illegal activity.

Here are five key things to know:

1. Once police find the evidence they are seeking, the warrant allows them to seize it.
2. Search warrants must be based on probable cause and cannnot be overly broad.
3. Warrantless searches can be legal, such as if you consent or as incident to a lawful arrest.
4. You can ask the court to disregard any evidence found through illegal searches.
5. Search warrants are different from bench warrants and arrest warrants.

In order to help you understand the law, our criminal defense attorneys will explain 7 key things to know about search warrants in California:

• 1. Who can authorize a search warrant?
• 2. What are the search warrant requirements for police in California?
• 3. Are there rules as to the use of informants?
• 4. How can a defense lawyer challenge the validity of a search warrant?
• 5. How are the police allowed to execute a warrant?
• 6. What is the knock and announce rule?
• 7. What is a motion to suppress evidence?
• Additional reading

If after reading this article, you have additional questions, we invite you to contact us. Also visit our related pages on California arrest warrants, California bench warrants, the use of police informants and motions to reveal the identity of confidential informants.

A judge issues and signs a search warrant.

1. Who can authorize a search warrant?

Although a search warrant is issued on behalf of the state (that is, by the prosecuting agency), the judge actually issues and signs it. 1 2 3 The purpose of having a judge issue the warrant instead of the police or a prosecutor is to ensure that a neutral, detached individual evaluates the circumstances of the criminal investigation. 4

Before the judge can sign off, two requirements must be met: The judge must reasonably believe

1. that a misdemeanor or felony has been committed, and
2. that evidence of that criminal case is likely to be found in the place(s) described in the search warrant. 5

If the facts presented in the warrant application are convincing, the judge must sign and issue the search warrant. 6

Also, we should clarify the distinction between search warrants and two other common types of warrants.

• A California arrest warrantis usually issued when criminal charges have been filed, and it authorizes the police to arrest you on the charges.
• A California bench warrantis issued by a judge for violating some rule of court, such as failing to appear for your court hearing or failing to pay a fine that was required as a condition of probation.

2. What are the search warrant requirements for police in California?

There are certain requirements that law enforcement must meet in order to obtain a search warrant in California. They must show probable cause that the locations to be searched contain evidence, instruments or fruits of criminal activity.

The following are examples of the types of grounds on which a California search warrant may be issued:

• if the sought property was allegedly stolen
• if the sought property was allegedly used as a means to commit a felony
• if the sought property is evidence of the fact that a felony has occurred or that you have committed a felony
• if the sought property is in possession of someone who intends to use it to commit a crime or in the possession of another to whom they may have delivered it for the purpose of concealing it or keeping it from being discovered
• if the sought property reveals child pornography
• if an arrest warrant has already issued. 7

It should be noted that if the sought property is held by an attorney, doctor, psychotherapist, or member of the clergy, a special procedure will be held before that evidence may be seized. Even then, the attorney, doctor, therapist, or clergyman must be the individual suspected of engaging in the alleged criminal activity. 8

Before a judge issues a search warrant, they must have probable cause to do so.

Probable cause

“Probable cause” is a legal phrase. It refers to a “reasonable” belief that criminal activity is taking (or has taken) place.

So before a judge issues a search warrant, they must have a reasonable belief that the person/property specifically described in the warrant application (otherwise known as an “affidavit“) will be found in the searched location. 9

Before finding that probable cause exists, the judge may question (under oath)

• the officer,
• prosecutor, or
• state investigator 10 who applied for the warrant, and
• any witnesses that the requesting individual relied on to determine that a warrant was necessary.

These affidavits may be written or oral, and presented in person, via the telephone, by fax, or even e-mail. 11 They also must contain the facts that establish the grounds for the application or the probable cause for believing that they exist.

Affidavits are under penalty of perjury. 12

Search warrants v. other types of warrants

3. Are there rules as to the use of informants?

Police routinely rely on information provided by informants. Informants are individuals who provide information about people, organizations, or activities to the police without the consent of those people or organizations.

That said, the judge must be informed of some of the facts that led the informant to their conclusion that there is alleged criminal activity. 13 A mere opinion that a person or property is involved in a crime is therefore insufficient without evidence to support it.

Since it is the judge who must determine if there is probable cause to issue the warrant, they must believe that the informant’s information is reliable. This may be established by:

• the identity of the informer,
• past experiences with the informant in which they have proven to be reliable, and/or
• corroboration by the officer’s personal observations or other evidence. 14

The informant’s identity

The judge may require disclosure of the informant’s name or may require them to give a statement under oath as to the information they provided to the police. 15 However, just because the informant’s identity is disclosed to the judge does not mean it will necessarily be disclosed to the defense.

A judge is allowed to seal any or all of the affidavit to protect the identity of a confidential informant if that testimony helped establish the probable cause that led the judge to issue the warrant. 16

Although the judge will not reveal the informant’s identity simply because you wish to use it to attack the judge’s finding of probable cause, they may ask the prosecutor to disclose it if your motion to traverse and quash the search warrant has merit. 17

A lawyer can challenge the validity of a search warrant in multiple ways.

4. How can a defense lawyer challenge the validity of a search warrant?

Although motions to quash and traverse would be more appropriately explained in the final section titled “Motion to Suppress Evidence“, they merit discussion here. They directly relate to informants and the probable cause required to obtain California search warrants.

A motion to “quash and traverse” challenges the affidavit (and underlying probable cause) that the judge relied on upon issuing the California search warrant:

• A motion to traverse challenges the truth of the affidavit.
• A motion to quash challenges the sufficiency of the affidavit (that is, even assuming the facts are true, whether they rise to the level of probable cause).

Although these motions may be filed separately or together, the terms are often used interchangeably. We will discuss them as one for the sake of simplicity.

California criminal defense lawyers may assert motions to traverse and quash a search warrant in three types of hearings:

1. in a Franks hearing (to assert that the author of the affidavit (otherwise known as the “affiant”) provided false information,
2. in a Luttenberger hearing (to assert that the informant provided false information), or
3. in a Hobbs hearing (which is based on a sealed affidavit).

Franks hearings

If you request a Franks hearing to quash and traverse a warrant because you believe the supporting affidavit contains false information, you must set forth the reasons why you believe that it is inaccurate. 18 California criminal defense lawyers may do this by demonstrating that:

1. the affidavit contained a false statement,
2. the statement was made knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth, and
3. that the statement was necessary (that is, “material”) to establish probable cause. 19

It should be noted that if the affiant intentionally leaves out material information, they will be deemed to have provided materially false information “by omission”. 20

The court must hold an “in camera” hearing if the judge believes that you have effectively challenged the truth of the affidavit. 21 An in-camera hearing is a private hearing held in the judge’s chambers.

During this hearing, the judge may question the affiant or informant to determine whether the affidavit is accurate, false, or misleading. 22

If the criminal defense attorney succeeds in proving that

1. the affidavit contained false material information, and
2. the remaining information is insufficient to support a finding of probable cause,

the judge must quash the California search warrant.

Once the search warrant is quashed, any evidence that was seized under the warrant will be suppressed. 23

*Suppressed evidence is discussed in the section titled “Motion to Suppress Evidence”.

Luttenberger hearings

When the affidavit supplying the probable cause contains information from an undisclosed informant, it is extremely difficult to establish that the affidavit is false – which is the standard to get a Franks hearing.

If the informant is not a material witness with respect to your guilt or innocence (an eyewitness to the alleged crime, for example), the prosecution is under no duty to disclose their identity. 24

A Luttenberger hearing takes place when you want to attack the truth of the affidavit but do not know the identity of the informant. In this hearing, the California criminal attorney may request information about:

1. the informant’s reliability,
2. their motive for providing information (for example, was the informant paid or offered leniency in exchange for their testimony?), and
3. any statements that the informant made in connection with the case.

Although the burden of proof is less strict than a Franks hearing, the defense still must cast doubt as to the truthfulness of the informant’s testimony. If you accomplish this, the court will conduct an in camera hearing to determine if the statements are material. 25

If the statements are material, the court will redact (or remove) any information that may disclose the informant’s identity before it provides you with the

• affidavit or
• supporting document(s). 26

If, during this hearing, you discover that the informant is a material witness to your guilt or innocence, you would move to disclose their identity at a Hobbs hearing.

Hobbs hearings

At a Hobbes hearing, the defense asks the judge to reveal the identity of the confidential informant upon whose information the California search warrant got issued.

When the entire affidavit has been sealed to protect the informant’s identity, it may be too difficult even to qualify for a Luttenberger hearing. When this is the case, the court must conduct an in-camera hearing upon receipt of your motion to traverse or quash the California search warrant. 27

Unless the prosecutor agrees, the hearing takes place without you or your criminal defense attorney. 28 During this closed hearing, the judge must decide

1. whether to maintain the confidentiality of the informant, and
2. whether the affidavit has been properly sealed. 29

If the court believes that the affidavit was properly sealed but does not believe that the information contained in it was false or misleading, it will simply deny your motion. 30

If, however, the court believes that you may succeed in your motion, it will first give the prosecution the opportunity to disclose their informant or have the case dismissed if the judge rules in your favor. 31

In our experience, the prosecution will generally dismiss the case before revealing or “burning” the police informant.

5. How are the police allowed to execute a warrant?

The contents of a California search warrant must be described with reasonable particularity. 32

Simply put, “reasonable particularity” means that the warrant should be so clear that nothing is left to the officer’s discretion when executing it. 33 This applies to both

1. the place to be searched, and
2. the person/property to be seized. 34

This means that a search warrant must be executed according to the exact details contained in the warrant 35 – warrants that are clear in their descriptions will be upheld and those that are unduly vague will not.

The following are some examples taken from actual California court cases regarding law enforcement agency searches: 36

Descriptions that were found not to be sufficiently clear —

• “all of the financial records”
• “other evidence”
• “stolen property”
• “certain personal property used as a means of committing larceny“

Items that were described with reasonable particularity —

• “personal property tending to identify the person in control”
• “bookmaking paraphernalia”
• “illegal deer meat and/or elk meat, etc.”

The more specific the language, the more likely the California search warrant will be upheld.

Time of execution

A California search warrant must be executed within ten (10) days of its issuance. If it has not been executed within that timeframe, it becomes void. 37

If the warrant expires, it may be reissued as long as the judge still believes there is probable cause to support it. 38 It, therefore, follows that if the probable cause that existed at the time of the original issuance is no longer relevant, the judge will not reissue the warrant.

There are also restrictions on what time of day a warrant may be executed. As a general rule, a search warrant may only be executed between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. If, however, the judge finds good cause, they may authorize service at any time of the day or night. 39

“Good cause” means that there is a factual basis for believing that a nighttime intrusion would be justified based on exigent circumstances. 40 If, for example, you have several outstanding warrants, service will be authorized whenever possible.

When establishing good cause, the judge must consider both

• public safety and
• the safety of the officers serving the warrant. 42

With respect to seized property…

The officer must provide a detailed receipt for any property that they seized during the search. The officer must leave the receipt with

1. the person from whom they took the property,
2. the person who possessed the property, or
3. where they found the property if it was taken without anyone being present. 42

Once taken, the officer must keep the property in police custody until they present it to the court. 43

All that said, the police are not permitted to search and seize anyone or anything until they have announced their presence.

6. What is the knock and announce rule?

Before an officer may execute a California search warrant at your home (or possibly your business 44 ), the officer must

• knock on the door,
• announce themself as a law enforcement officer,
• inform you that they have a search warrant, and
• give you enough time to open the door. 45

It should be noted that the third requirement may technically be completed after you open the door but in either event must be before the officer enters the home. 46

There is no steadfast rule as to exactly how these knock-notice (also referred to as the “knock and announce rule“) requirements should be executed. So in order to determine whether the executing officers have legally fulfilled their duties under California’s knock-notice law, the court will look for substantial compliance.

“Substantial compliance,” in its simplest terms, means that the policies underlying the knock and announce requirements are achieved under the circumstances. 47 These policies include:

1. protecting a homeowner’s privacy,
2. protecting innocent people on the premises,
3. preventing situations that may otherwise encourage a violent confrontation between a homeowner and those who enter their home without notice, and
4. protecting the police from a startled or fearful homeowner/occupant. 48

The knock-notice rules and the policies behind them are to ensure that if and when the police force entry into your home, it is only because you knowingly refused their entry.

Forced entry

When is it okay for law enforcement officers to enter a home without permission? After their entry has been refused.

If you (as the owner or occupant) refuse to

• open the door for the officers, or
• permit them into your home,

the police may break in through a door, window, or any other part of the house to execute the California search warrant. 49 The same holds true if no one is home. 50

Assuming you are home, there must be some evidence of a refusal before the police may legally force their way in. This is most typically evidenced by either

• an unreasonable delay in responding to the officers’ request to enter 51 (which must be determined based on the facts of the specific case), or
• an outright refusal where you tell the police that you will not open the door. 52

Some examples of situations where California courts have held that unlawful forced entries took place include:

• where knock-notice requirements were not fulfilled (for example, although the officer announced their presence, they did not state their purpose) 53
• where the officer simultaneously announced their presence and forced entry without giving the homeowner the opportunity to comply or refuse 54
• where the forceful entry was only 20 seconds after the officers otherwise complied with the knock-notice rules. 55
• where knock and announce rules were not followed when the officer entered the home to secure it while the warrant was being obtained 56
• where the officer announced that they were a police officer (without stating his purpose) and only after they had already forced entry. 57

There are, of course, certain times when officers are permitted to execute a California search warrant by forcing their entry even without complying with the knock-notice requirements.

Exceptions to California’s knock-notice rule

The following are some of the most common exceptions to the knock and announce requirement:

• consent (if you consent to the officer’s entry, the officer does not need to proceed with knock-notice requirements) 58
• public places (knock and announce rules are designed to respect your privacy in your home – there is no similar privacy right in a public place) 59
• exigent circumstances (“exigent circumstances” basically mean that “time is of the essence”).

When exigent circumstances are present, the knock-notice requirements may be waived. This is most typically the case where police suspect that those inside the home

• may arm themselves, or
• destroy the drugs

if they first knock and announce their presence.

There is no blanket exception for exigent circumstances, as each case must be independently evaluated. 60 The judge will likely excuse a knock-notice violation

“[I]f the specific facts known to the officer before his entry are sufficient to support his good faith belief that compliance will increase his peril, frustrate the arrest, or permit the destruction of evidence[.]” 61

Absent one of these recognized exceptions, a knock-notice violation may render any subsequent search and seizure unreasonable, and therefore, illegal. 62 When a search and/or seizure is illegal, the prosecution will be prevented from using any of the seized evidence against you at trial. 63

7. What is a motion to suppress evidence?

The most common challenge to a search warrant lies in a California Penal Code 1538.5 PC motion to suppress evidence. This motion may be filed if you wish to

1. recover seized evidence, or
2. exclude seized evidence from your trial.

A California criminal defense attorney may file an “unreasonable search and seizure” Penal Code 1538.5 motion based on any of the following facts:

• that the California search warrant was insufficient on its face (this issue could also be raised in a motion to quash the warrant)
• that there was no probable cause to issue the search warrant (raised in either a motion to quash or traverse)
• that the seized property or other evidence was not specifically described in the search warrant (for example, the officers seized non-deadly weapons when the warrant specifically said deadly weapons)
• that the execution of the search warrant was illegal. 64

If any part of the search was unlawful, any discovered evidence will typically be excluded under this section. As John Murray, one of Ventura’s top criminal defense attorneys, puts it,

“This ‘exclusionary rule’ is one of the most powerful defenses available.”

If your motion is granted, the prosecution will be prohibited from “using” the seized evidence against you at trial. A victory on this motion will often lead the prosecutor to dismiss (or at the very least significantly reduce) your charge(s).

Additional reading

For more in-depth information on search warrants, refer to these scholarly articles:

• The Execution of Search Warrants– Colorado Law Scholarly Commons.
• Search Warrants, Motions to Suppress and Lost Cases: The Effects of the Exclusionary Rule in Seven Jurisdictions – Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology.
• Press One for Warrant: Reinventing the Fourth Amendment’s Search Warrant Requirement through Electronic Procedures – Vanderbilt Law Review.
• The Search Warrant, the Magistrate, and Judicial Review – New York University Law Review.
• The Post-Riley Search Warrant: Search Protocols and Particularity in Cell Phone Searches – Vanderbilt Law Review.

Legal References:

1. Collins v. Lean, (1885) 68 Cal.284, 288 (“Under article 4 of the amendments to the U.S. constitution … , it is provided that no search-warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the person or things to be seized. To the same effect is section 19 of article 1 of our state constitution. As we read those instruments we do not find existent therein any prohibition against the issuance of a search warrant of the person of an individual in a proper case. Therefore, subject to the limitations of those constitutions, and subject also to the conditions that body may itself have prescribed, it is within the power of our state legislature to authorize the issuance of such a warrant. And this power it has exercised by the enactment in the Penal Code of sections 1523 to 1542 inclusive.”). See also People v. Rowlands (Cal.App. 2022) 82 Cal. App. 5th 1099 ; People v. Tousant (Cal.App. 2021) 64 Cal. App. 5th 804 .
2. California Penal Code 1523 — Definition. (“A search warrant is an order in writing, in the name of the people, signed by a magistrate, directed to a peace officer, commanding him or her to search for a person or persons, a thing or things, or personal property, and, in the case of a thing or things or personal property, bring the same before the magistrate.”)
3. See same. (“A search warrant is an order in writing, in the name of the people, signed by a magistrate….”)
4. People of the State of California v. Escamilla, (1976) 65 Cal.App.3d 558, 562 (“Adverting to the responsibility devolving upon a magistrate in the issuance of a search warrant, it has been said that “… an issuing magistrate must meet two tests. He must be neutral and detached, and he must be capable of determining whether probable cause exists for the requested arrest or search.” ( Shadwick v. City of Tampa (1972) 407 U.S. 345, 350.) The goal is to require an informed and deliberate review of the circumstances by one who is removed from “‘… the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime”‘.”)
5. California Penal Code 1525 — Issuance; probable cause; supporting affidavits; contents of application. (“A search warrant cannot be issued but upon probable cause, supported by affidavit, naming or describing the person to be searched or searched for, and particularly describing the property, thing, or things and the place to be searched.”)
6. California Penal Code 1528 — Issuance; magistrate satisfied as to grounds; formalities; command; duplicate original warrant. (“(a) If the magistrate is thereupon satisfied of the existence of the grounds of the application, or that there is probable cause to believe their existence, he or she must issue a search warrant, signed by him or her with his or her name of office, to a peace officer in his or her county, commanding him or her forthwith to search the person or place named for the property or things or person or persons specified, and to retain the property or things in his or her custody subject to order of the court as provided by [California Penal Code] Section 1536.”)
7. California Penal Code 1524 — Grounds for issuance of warrant; Protection of evidence; Gun violence restraining order; Seizure of prohibited items; Procedure
   

(a) A search warrant may be issued upon any of the following grounds:
(1) When the property was stolen or embezzled.
(2) When the property or things were used as the means of committing a felony.
(3) When the property or things are in the possession of any person with the intent to use them as a means of committing a public offense, or in the possession of another to whom that person may have delivered them for the purpose of concealing them or preventing them from being discovered.
(4) When the property or things to be seized consist of an item or constitute evidence that tends to show a felony has been committed, or tends to show that a particular person has committed a felony.
(5) When the property or things to be seized consist of evidence that tends to show that sexual exploitation of a child, in violation of Section 311.3, or possession of matter depicting sexual conduct of a person under 18 years of age, in violation of Section 311.11, has occurred or is occurring.
(6) When there is a warrant to arrest a person.
(7) When a provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service has records or evidence, as specified in Section 1524.3, showing that property was stolen or embezzled constituting a misdemeanor, or that property or things are in the possession of any person with the intent to use them as a means of committing a misdemeanor public offense, or in the possession of another to whom that person may have delivered them for the purpose of concealing them or preventing their discovery.
(8) When the property or things to be seized include an item or evidence that tends to show a violation of Section 3700.5 of the Labor Code, or tends to show that a particular person has violated Section 3700.5 of the Labor Code.
(9) When the property or things to be seized include a firearm or other deadly weapon at the scene of, or at the premises occupied or under the control of the person arrested in connection with, a domestic violence incident involving a threat to human life or a physical assault as provided in Section 18250. This section does not affect warrantless seizures otherwise authorized by Section 18250.
(10) When the property or things to be seized include a firearm or other deadly weapon that is owned by, or in the possession of, or in the custody or control of, a person described in subdivision (a) of Section 8102 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
(11) When the property or things to be seized include a firearm that is owned by, or in the possession of, or in the custody or control of, a person who is subject to the prohibitions regarding firearms pursuant to Section 6389 of the Family Code, if a prohibited firearm is possessed, owned, in the custody of, or controlled by a person against whom a protective order has been issued pursuant to Section 6218 of the Family Code, the person has been lawfully served with that order, and the person has failed to relinquish the firearm as required by law.
(12) When the information to be received from the use of a tracking device constitutes evidence that tends to show that either a felony, a misdemeanor violation of the Fish and Game Code, or a misdemeanor violation of the Public Resources Code has been committed or is being committed, tends to show that a particular person has committed a felony, a misdemeanor violation of the Fish and Game Code, or a misdemeanor violation of the Public Resources Code, or is committing a felony, a misdemeanor violation of the Fish and Game Code, or a misdemeanor violation of the Public Resources Code, or will assist in locating an individual who has committed or is committing a felony, a misdemeanor violation of the Fish and Game Code, or a misdemeanor violation of the Public Resources Code. A tracking device search warrant issued pursuant to this paragraph shall be executed in a manner meeting the requirements specified in subdivision (b) of Section 1534.
(13) When a sample of the blood of a person constitutes evidence that tends to show a violation of Section 23140 , 23152 , or 23153 of the Vehicle Code and the person from whom the sample is being sought has refused an officer’s request to submit to, or has failed to complete, a blood test as required by Section 23612 of the Vehicle Code, and the sample will be drawn from the person in a reasonable, medically approved manner. This paragraph is not intended to abrogate a court’s mandate to determine the propriety of the issuance of a search warrant on a case-by-case basis.
(14) Beginning January 1, 2016, the property or things to be seized are firearms or ammunition or both that are owned by, in the possession of, or in the custody or control of a person who is the subject of a gun violence restraining order that has been issued pursuant to Division 3.2 (commencing with Section 18100) of Title 2 of Part 6, if a prohibited firearm or ammunition or both is possessed, owned, in the custody of, or controlled by a person against whom a gun violence restraining order has been issued, the person has been lawfully served with that order, and the person has failed to relinquish the firearm as required by law.
(15) Beginning January 1, 2018, the property or things to be seized include a firearm that is owned by, or in the possession of, or in the custody or control of, a person who is subject to the prohibitions regarding firearms pursuant to Section 29800 or 29805, and the court has made a finding pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 29810 that the person has failed to relinquish the firearm as required by law.
(16) When the property or things to be seized are controlled substances or a device, contrivance, instrument, or paraphernalia used for unlawfully using or administering a controlled substance pursuant to the authority described in Section 11472 of the Health and Safety Code.
(17)
(A) When all of the following apply:
(i) A sample of the blood of a person constitutes evidence that tends to show a violation of subdivision (b), (c), (d), (e), or (f) of Section 655 of the Harbors and Navigation Code.
(ii) The person from whom the sample is being sought has refused an officer’s request to submit to, or has failed to complete, a blood test as required by Section 655.1 of the Harbors and Navigation Code.
(iii) The sample will be drawn from the person in a reasonable, medically approved manner.
(B) This paragraph is not intended to abrogate a court’s mandate to determine the propriety of the issuance of a search warrant on a case-by-case basis.
(18) When the property or things to be seized consists of evidence that tends to show that a violation of paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of subdivision (j) of Section 647 has occurred or is occurring.
(19)
(A) When the property or things to be seized are data, from a recording device installed by the manufacturer of a motor vehicle, that constitutes evidence that tends to show the commission of a felony or misdemeanor offense involving a motor vehicle, resulting in death or serious bodily injury to any person. The data accessed by a warrant pursuant to this paragraph shall not exceed the scope of the data that is directly related to the offense for which the warrant is issued.
(B) For the purposes of this paragraph, “recording device” has the same meaning as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 9951 of the Vehicle Code. The scope of the data accessible by a warrant issued pursuant to this paragraph shall be limited to the information described in subdivision (b) of Section 9951 of the Vehicle Code.
(C) For the purposes of this paragraph, “serious bodily injury” has the same meaning as defined in paragraph (4) of subdivision (f) of Section 243 of the Penal Code.
(20) When the property or things to be seized consists of evidence that tends to show that a violation of Section 647.9 has occurred or is occurring. Evidence to be seized pursuant to this paragraph shall be limited to evidence of a violation of Section 647.9 and shall not include evidence of a violation of a departmental rule or guideline that is not a public offense under California law.
(b) The property, things, person, or persons described in subdivision (a) may be taken on the warrant from any place, or from any person in whose possession the property or things may be.
(c) Notwithstanding subdivision (a) or (b), a search warrant shall not be issued for any documentary evidence in the possession or under the control of any person who is a lawyer as defined in Section 950 of the Evidence Code, a physician as defined in Section 990 of the Evidence Code, a psychotherapist as defined in Section 1010 of the Evidence Code, or a member of the clergy as defined in Section 1030 of the Evidence Code, and who is not reasonably suspected of engaging or having engaged in criminal activity related to the documentary evidence for which a warrant is requested unless the following procedure has been complied with:
(1) At the time of the issuance of the warrant, the court shall appoint a special master in accordance with subdivision (d) to accompany the person who will serve the warrant. Upon service of the warrant, the special master shall inform the party served of the specific items being sought and that the party shall have the opportunity to provide the items requested. If the party, in the judgment of the special master, fails to provide the items requested, the special master shall conduct a search for the items in the areas indicated in the search warrant.
(2)
(A) If the party who has been served states that an item or items should not be disclosed, they shall be sealed by the special master and taken to court for a hearing.
(B) At the hearing, the party searched shall be entitled to raise any issues that may be raised pursuant to Section 1538.5 as well as a claim that the item or items are privileged, as provided by law. The hearing shall be held in the superior court. The court shall provide sufficient time for the parties to obtain counsel and make motions or present evidence. The hearing shall be held within three days of the service of the warrant unless the court makes a finding that the expedited hearing is impracticable. In that case, the matter shall be heard at the earliest possible time.
(C) If an item or items are taken to court for a hearing, any limitations of time prescribed in Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 799) of Title 3 of Part 2 shall be tolled from the time of the seizure until the final conclusion of the hearing, including any associated writ or appellate proceedings.
(3) The warrant shall, whenever practicable, be served during normal business hours. In addition, the warrant shall be served upon a party who appears to have possession or control of the items sought. If, after reasonable efforts, the party serving the warrant is unable to locate the person, the special master shall seal and return to the court, for determination by the court, any item that appears to be privileged as provided by law.
(d)
(1) As used in this section, a “special master” is an attorney who is a member in good standing of the California State Bar and who has been selected from a list of qualified attorneys that is maintained by the State Bar particularly for the purposes of conducting the searches described in this section. These attorneys shall serve without compensation. A special master shall be considered a public employee, and the governmental entity that caused the search warrant to be issued shall be considered the employer of the special master and the applicable public entity, for purposes of Division 3.6 (commencing with Section 810) of Title 1 of the Government Code, relating to claims and actions against public entities and public employees. In selecting the special master, the court shall make every reasonable effort to ensure that the person selected has no relationship with any of the parties involved in the pending matter. Information obtained by the special master shall be confidential and may not be divulged except in direct response to inquiry by the court.
(2) In any case in which the magistrate determines that, after reasonable efforts have been made to obtain a special master, a special master is not available and would not be available within a reasonable period of time, the magistrate may direct the party seeking the order to conduct the search in the manner described in this section in lieu of the special master.
(e) Any search conducted pursuant to this section by a special master may be conducted in a manner that permits the party serving the warrant or that party’s designee to accompany the special master as the special master conducts the search. However, that party or that party’s designee may not participate in the search nor shall they examine any of the items being searched by the special master except upon agreement of the party upon whom the warrant has been served.
(f) As used in this section, “documentary evidence” includes, but is not limited to, writings, documents, blueprints, drawings, photographs, computer printouts, microfilms, x-rays, files, diagrams, ledgers, books, tapes, audio and video recordings, films, and papers of any type or description.
(g) No warrant shall issue for any item or items described in Section 1070 of the Evidence Code.
(h) No warrant shall issue for any item or items that pertain to an investigation into a prohibited violation, as defined in Section 629.51.
(i) Notwithstanding any other law, no claim of attorney work product as described in Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010) of Title 4 of Part 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall be sustained where there is probable cause to believe that the lawyer is engaging or has engaged in criminal activity related to the documentary evidence for which a warrant is requested unless it is established at the hearing with respect to the documentary evidence seized under the warrant that the services of the lawyer were not sought or obtained to enable or aid anyone to commit or plan to commit a crime or a fraud.
(j) Nothing in this section is intended to limit an attorney’s ability to request an in-camera hearing pursuant to the holding of the Supreme Court of California in People v. Superior Court (Laff) (2001) 25 Cal.4th 703.
(k) In addition to any other circumstance permitting a magistrate to issue a warrant for a person or property in another county, when the property or things to be seized consist of any item or constitute evidence that tends to show a violation of Section 530.5, the magistrate may issue a warrant to search a person or property located in another county if the person whose identifying information was taken or used resides in the same county as the issuing court.
(l) This section shall not be construed to create a cause of action against any foreign or California corporation, its officers, employees, agents, or other specified persons for providing location information.