This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2007-12-19 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It is elemental that in order to be valid, a search warrant must particularly describe the place to be searched and the things to be seized. The constitutional requirement of reasonable particularity of description of the things to be seized is primarily meant to enable the law enforcers serving the warrant to: (1) readily identify the properties to be seized and thus prevent them from seizing the wrong items; and (2) leave said peace officers with no discretion regarding the articles to be seized and thus prevent unreasonable searches and seizures.[29] It is not, however, required that the things to be seized must be described in precise and minute detail as to leave no room for doubt on the part of the searching authorities.[30] | |||||
|
2006-10-27 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The general rule is that the task of a reviewing court is not to conduct a de novo determination of probable cause but only to determine whether there is substantial evidence in the records supporting the Judge's decision to issue the search warrant.[80] The reviewing court is simply to ensure that the Judge had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed,[81] and once ascertained that the Judge had substantial basis for concluding that a search would unearth evidence of a wrongdoing, the determination of probable cause must be upheld. In the absence of any showing that the Judge was recreant of his duties in connection with the personal examination he so conducted on the affiants/deponent before him, there is no basis for doubting the reliability and correctness of his findings and impressions.[82] | |||||