Stanford Law School - Robert Crown Law Library

Filed 5/22/06

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
S119230
v.
) Ct.App.
1/2
A098085
JOHN MEDLEY JOHNSON,
Contra Costa County
Defendant and Respondent.
Super. Ct. No. 011050-2

In 1967, the Legislature enacted Penal Code section 1538.5, a provision that,
in conjunction with section 1539, establishes a systematic and unified procedure
for raising and resolving motions that seek to suppress evidence in criminal
proceedings on the ground that it has been obtained as a result of an unreasonable
search or seizure. In this case we must decide whether, when a suppression
motion is brought under section 1538.5, a party is entitled to present its case at the
hearing by affidavit instead of live testimony.
At the hearing on the section 1538.5 suppression motion challenging a
warrantless search and seizure of evidence that the prosecution sought to introduce
in this proceeding, it attempted to meet its burden of proof by presenting its case
through an affidavit of the police officer who had conducted the challenged
search. The prosecution took the position that if defendant wished to cross-
examine the officer with regard to the material set forth in the affidavit, defendant
bore the burden of issuing a subpoena to the officer in order to obtain his presence
1

---

at the hearing. The trial court, rejecting the prosecution’s argument, concluded the
affidavit was inadmissible. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s ensuing
dismissal of the case, concluding that a general statutory provision of the Code of
Civil Procedure — section 2009, which authorizes the use of affidavits in a variety
of settings including “upon a motion” ― authorized the prosecution to proceed by
affidavit at a hearing on a motion to suppress under section 1538.5.
For the reasons discussed below, we agree with the trial court’s conclusion
that neither Code of Civil Procedure section 2009 nor any other statute expressly
authorizes the use of affidavits in lieu of live testimony at suppression hearings
held pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5. As we shall explain, the language of
sections 1538.5 and 1539, as well as the uniform practice over the more than 40
years following the enactment of section 1538.5, make it clear that the suppression
hearings provided for in section 1538.5 were intended, and have been understood,
to involve the testimony of investigating officers and other pertinent witnesses
whose credibility is to be determined by the magistrate or judge presiding at the
hearing.
Code of Civil Procedure section 2009, the provision invoked by the
prosecution and the Court of Appeal, does not by its terms purport to apply to a
hearing on a motion to suppress evidence conducted pursuant to Penal Code
section 1538.5, and in our view cannot reasonably be interpreted to apply to such a
hearing. Because we conclude that there is no statutory authorization for
determining the questions at issue in a section 1538.5 hearing on the basis of
affidavits, we have no occasion to consider the constitutional limitations, if any,
that would apply to a statutory scheme authorizing the resolution of a motion to
suppress evidence on the basis of affidavits.
2

---

I
The facts underlying defendant’s crimes are not at issue. In short, the
charges stemmed from the burglary of the Contra Costa County residence of
defendant’s father, Jerry Johnson, who told the investigating officers that he
suspected defendant might have committed the offense. Based on the information
from defendant’s father, as well as evidence obtained at the scene of the burglary
pointing to defendant’s involvement, Contra Costa authorities obtained a warrant
to search a storage unit visited by defendant around the time of the burglary,
where they discovered some items that had been stolen from the house.
Several days later, police officers in Los Angeles responding to a report of a
“suspicious person in a vehicle,” found defendant sleeping in his lawfully parked
vehicle and thereafter detained him and conducted a warrantless search of the
vehicle. The search yielded property taken in the burglary, as did a subsequent
inventory search of the vehicle conducted after defendant’s arrest. This
information was relayed to Contra Costa authorities, who traveled to Los Angeles
and interviewed defendant, who admitted committing the burglary and told them
where they could find other items taken during the offense. These authorities also
conducted their own search of defendant’s car, finding additional items taken in
the burglary.
Defendant was charged by information with first degree residential burglary,
second degree burglary, grand theft of a firearm, and grand theft of personal
property. Upon defendant’s entry of a plea of not guilty, the case was set for trial.
Thereafter, defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence under section 1538.5,
contending that his detention by the Los Angeles police was unlawful and that all
of the subsequently obtained evidence, as well as his confession, were a product of
that unlawful detention and should be suppressed. The motion specified that
defendant was not challenging the search of the storage locker, or the admissibility
3

---

of the evidence obtained in that search, which preceded his detention in Los
Angeles.
The prosecution filed an opposition to the motion, maintaining that
defendant’s detention by the Los Angeles police and the search and seizure of
evidence at the time of the detention were reasonable, and relying upon an
affidavit of Los Angeles Sheriff’s Deputy Matthew Ohnemus, who conducted the
warrantless search at issue. Ohnemus’s affidavit asserted that on the day of
defendant’s detention, Ohnemus responded to a report of a suspicious person in a
vehicle and found defendant asleep in his car. After knocking on the window to
wake defendant, Ohnemus observed in plain view on the center console a plastic
baggie containing a usable amount of marijuana and a pipe. The affidavit then
described Ohnemus’s detention of defendant and the attendant search of the
vehicle, which the deputy asserted were carried out as a result of his observation
of the marijuana and pipe in plain view.
In response to the opposition, defendant, anticipating that the prosecution
intended to rely upon the investigating officer’s affidavit at the section 1538.5
hearing, filed points and authorities maintaining that the prosecution was not
entitled to proceed at the hearing on the basis of that affidavit. The prosecution
then responded with its own lengthy memorandum of points and authorities in
support of the admission of the affidavit at the upcoming hearing on the section
1538.5 motion, taking the position that the prosecution could proceed at the
hearing on the basis of the affidavit, without presenting the live testimony of the
officer. The prosecutor conceded that defendant had a right to question the
officer, but asserted that defendant had to subpoena the officer in order to obtain
4

---

his presence at the hearing.1 Defendant filed opposition to the admission of the
affidavit, arguing that it constituted inadmissible hearsay not subject to any
exception. Ultimately, the trial court concluded the affidavit was inadmissible.
In response to the trial court’s ruling, the prosecution chose to rely solely
upon the affidavit, indicating it had no further evidence to present at the Penal
Code section 1538.5 hearing. Accordingly, in light of the prosecution’s failure to
sustain its burden of establishing the lawfulness of the warrantless search and
seizure, the trial court granted the motion to suppress. When defendant thereafter
moved to dismiss the charges, based on the trial court’s order granting the
suppression motion, the prosecution did not object to a dismissal.
The People, represented by the Contra Costa District Attorney’s Office,
appealed from the ensuing judgment of dismissal. The Court of Appeal concluded
that the trial court erred in excluding the affidavit and reversed the judgment of
dismissal. Although the Court of Appeal acknowledged that it was unaware of
any prior California decision specifically authorizing the prosecution or the
defense to present evidence at a Penal Code section 1538.5 hearing by means of
affidavit rather than live testimony, or indeed any reported California decision
reflecting a party’s attempt to proceed in that manner, the appellate court
concluded that Code of Civil Procedure section 2009, which provides for the use
of affidavits in a variety of settings including “upon a motion,” when read in
conjunction with Penal Code section 1102, which makes the rules of evidence in
civil actions applicable in criminal actions (“except as otherwise provided” in the

1
The prosecution did not contend that Deputy Ohnemus was unavailable to
testify at the hearing.
5

---

Penal Code), authorized the prosecution to proceed by means of an affidavit at a
section 1538.5 hearing.
We granted defendant’s petition for review.
II
Past California decisions establish that a defendant moving pursuant to Penal
Code section 1538.5 to suppress evidence obtained as the result of a warrantless
search must set forth the factual and legal bases for the motion by making a prima
facie showing that law enforcement authorities acted without a warrant. (People v.
Williams (1999) 20 Cal.4th 119, 136.) A defendant’s moving papers, however,
need not anticipate the prosecution’s justifications for the warrantless search or
seizure, because “[l]aw enforcement personnel, not defendants, are in the best
position to know what justification, if any, they had for proceeding without a
warrant.” (Ibid.) Accordingly, the burden of proving the justification for the
warrantless search or seizure lies squarely with the prosecution. (Id. at pp. 136-
137; see also People v. Smith (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 283, 297).
In the present case we must decide whether at a Penal Code section 1538.5
hearing the prosecution may meet its burden of proving justification for a
warrantless search and seizure by presenting an affidavit of the investigating
officer in lieu of the officer’s live testimony. Despite the numerous references in
the governing statutes to live testimony, the People argue on appeal, as they did
below, that affidavits are made admissible at suppression hearings by the
provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 2009 and several other statutes
generally providing that civil procedural rules or rules of evidence may, in some
circumstances, apply to criminal actions. Defendant counters that the prosecutor’s
6

---

proffered statutory interpretation contradicts the clear language of sections 1538.5
and 1539 and finds no support in the legislative history of section 1538.5.2
We agree with defendant that the governing statutes clearly contemplate the
presentation of live testimony rather than affidavits at a Penal Code section 1538.5
hearing. The first principle of statutory interpretation is that, to ascertain the
Legislature’s intent, we turn initially to the words of the statute, and if “ ‘the
statutory language is clear and unambiguous, there is no need for construction and
courts should not indulge in it. [Citation.] The plain language of the statute
establishes what was intended by the Legislature.’ ” (People v. Statum (2002) 28
Cal.4th 682, 689-690.) Accordingly, we start with the statutory language of
sections 1538.5 and 1539, which together provide a detailed and comprehensive
procedure governing the making, hearing, resolution, and appeal of motions to
suppress evidence based on the ground of unlawful search and seizure.
The initial provision of Penal Code section 1538.5 — subdivision (a)(1) —
sets forth the bases upon which a motion to suppress evidence or for the return of
property may be brought under the statute — in general, on the ground of unlawful
search and seizure.3 Section 1538.5, subdivision (a)(2) then provides: “A motion

2
Defendant also argues that the prosecutor’s statutory construction creates
constitutional due process and confrontation problems. As noted above, because we
conclude that the current statutes do not authorize resolution of the issues raised at a
section 1538.5 hearing on the basis of affidavits in lieu of live testimony, we do not
reach defendant’s constitutional arguments.
3
Section 1538.5, subdivision (a)(1) provides: “A defendant may move for the
return of property or to suppress as evidence any tangible or intangible thing obtained
as a result of a search or seizure on either of the following grounds:
“(A) The search or seizure without a warrant was unreasonable.
“(B) The search or seizure with a warrant was unreasonable because any of the
following apply:
“(i) The warrant is insufficient on its face.
“(ii) The property or evidence obtained is not that described in the warrant.
(footnote continued on next page)
7

---

pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be made in writing and accompanied by a
memorandum of points and authorities and proof of service. The memorandum
shall list the specific items of property or evidence sought to be returned or
suppressed and shall set forth the factual basis and the legal authorities that
demonstrate why the motion should be granted.”
Section 1538.5, subdivision (c), in turn, provides: “(1) Whenever a search or
seizure motion is made in the superior court as provided in this section, the judge
or magistrate shall receive evidence on any issue of fact necessary to determine
the motion.
“(2) While a witness is under examination during a hearing pursuant to a
search or seizure motion, the judge or magistrate shall, upon motion of either
party, do any of the following:
“(A) Exclude all potential and actual witnesses who have not been
examined.
“(B) Order the witnesses not to converse with each other until they are all
examined.
“(C) Order, where feasible, that the witnesses be kept separated from each
other until they are all examined.
“(D) Hold a hearing, on the record, to determine if the person sought to be
excluded is, in fact, a person excludable under this section.

(footnote continued from previous page)
“(iii) There was not probable cause for the issuance of the warrant.
“(iv) The method of execution of the warrant violated federal or state constitutional
standards.
“(v) There was any other violation of federal or state constitutional standards.”
8

---

“(3) Either party may challenge the exclusion of any person under paragraph
(2).
“(4) Paragraph (2) does not apply to the investigating officer or the
investigator for the defendant, nor does it apply to officers having custody of
persons brought before the court.” (Italics added.)
Section 1538.5, subdivision (i), further provides in pertinent part: “. . . If the
motion [to suppress evidence] was made at the preliminary hearing, unless
otherwise agreed to by all parties, evidence presented at a special hearing shall be
limited to the transcript of the preliminary hearing and to evidence that could not
reasonably have been presented at the preliminary hearing, except that the people
may recall witnesses who testified at the preliminary hearing. . . . The court shall
base its ruling on all evidence presented at the special hearing and on the transcript
of the preliminary hearing, and the findings of the magistrate shall be binding on
the court as to evidence or property not affected by evidence presented at the
special hearing.” (Italics added.)
Finally, Penal Code section 1539, subdivision (a) provides in pertinent part:
“If a special hearing is held in a felony case pursuant to Section 1538.5 . . . the
judge or magistrate shall proceed to take testimony in relation thereto, and the
testimony of each witness must be reduced to writing and authenticated by a
shorthand reporter in the manner prescribed in Section 869.” (Italics added.)4

4
Section 869, in turn, requires that the testimony of each witness who testifies at
a preliminary examination held to determine whether probable cause exists to hold the
defendant to answer for trial in a homicide case, or in other cases upon demand of
either party, be “reduced to writing, as a deposition” or taken down in shorthand by a
court reporter. Subdivisions (a) through (d) set forth the requirements for
authentication of the deposition or testimony, such as requiring the witness to state his
or her name, residence, and business or profession. (§ 869, subds.(a)-(d).)
9

---

An examination of the italicized language in Penal Code sections 1538.5 and
1539 quoted above establishes that both statutes clearly contemplate that a
suppression motion will be litigated at a hearing at which live witnesses testify.
Although the statutes do not expressly prohibit a party from proceeding at such a
hearing by means of affidavits in lieu of live testimony, the language of the
statutes, taken as a whole, is inconsistent with such a procedure. For instance,
section 1538.5 subdivision (c)(2)(A), (B), and (C), which deals at some length
with the exclusion of witnesses, states that upon the motion of a party, the judge or
magistrate is to exclude all potential or actual witnesses and order that they be kept
separated from each other and not converse until they all are examined. Exposure
to written statements cannot be so easily contained, and allowing the prosecution
to proceed by affidavit would frustrate the evident goal of the statute to guard
against the corruption of a witness’s testimony through exposure to the testimony
of other witnesses.
Moreover, Penal Code section 1538.5 is quite specific regarding notice and
timing issues. Section 1538.5, subdivision (i), for instance, provides that a
prosecutor’s reply to a suppression motion need not be filed until “at least two
court days prior to the hearing.” The People acknowledge that a defendant has the
right to cross-examine affiants, but contend that the defendant has the burden of
subpoenaing the witness. If, however, the People were allowed to oppose a
motion to suppress through the introduction of affidavits instead of the
presentation of live testimony, any defendant seeking to cross-examine the affiant
would be forced to subpoena the witness within an unreasonably short time frame.
Allowing the prosecution to proceed by affidavit could, and likely would, force the
postponement of numerous scheduled hearings. The two-day time limit specified
in the statute thus suggests that the Legislature contemplated that the prosecution
10

---

would meet its burden of justifying a challenged search through the presentation of
live testimony, and not through the submission of affidavits.
Furthermore, with regard to the italicized portions of Penal Code section
1539 (ante), written affidavits need not, and cannot, be “reduced to writing” and
cannot be authenticated in the manner prescribed by Penal Code section 869,
because the authentication requirements of that statute also clearly contemplate
testimony by live witnesses who are subject to questioning. Moreover, the fact
that the “reduced to writing” and authentication language of section 1539 follows
a legislative declaration that the court “shall proceed to take testimony,” presents
strong statutory support for the proposition that live witnesses are required at a
section 1538.5 hearing.
Accordingly, we conclude that the language of Penal Code sections 1538.5
and 1539 reasonably must be interpreted to require the parties to present testimony
at the hearing through live witnesses, whose demeanor and credibility can be
evaluated by the magistrate or judge presiding at the hearing, rather than by means
of written affidavits.5
The legislative history of Penal Code section 1538.5 supports the conclusion
we reach. Prior to the adoption of this statute, a defendant could challenge the use
of illegally obtained evidence in a criminal proceeding through a variety of

5
Although the Court of Appeal acknowledged that a “literal reading” of section
1539 contemplates the testimony of live witnesses, it attempted to reconcile its
holding with the statutory language by interpreting the phrase “take testimony” as
used in the statute to refer to written “testimony” (in the form of an affidavit) as well
as oral testimony. Viewing the provisions of sections 1538.5 and 1539 as a whole, we
believe the Court of Appeal’s proposed reconciliation unreasonably strains this
statutory language.
11

---

procedural mechanisms.6 Because these former procedures for suppressing
evidence were “numerous and confusing,” section 1538.5 was adopted to
“substitute[] a comprehensive plan, prescribing a single method of raising the
issue in particular proceedings and at particular stages of the proceedings . . . .
The purpose of the legislation is to permit the issue to be raised at an early stage,
and to require the defendant to raise it at that stage.” (4 Witkin & Epstein, Cal.
Criminal Law, supra, Illegally Obtained Evidence, § 355, pp. 1040-1041.)7 There
is no indication, however, that the Legislature intended to change the practice
prescribed for the presentation of evidence at hearings on motions to suppress.
The cases preceding the enactment of section 1538.5, although not directly
addressing the type of evidence to be considered by the court in ruling upon a
motion to suppress evidence, nonetheless demonstrate that at whatever stage and
through whatever procedural mechanism employed by a defendant, the
determination of the motion traditionally was made on the basis of the testimony
of either the investigating officer or other relevant witnesses. (See, e.g., Badillo v.
Superior Court (1956) 46 Cal.2d 269, 271-272 [observing that in pretrial hearings
held before a magistrate challenging the legality of a search and seizure, “the

6
Prior to the adoption of section 1538.5, a defendant could challenge the use of
illegally obtained evidence by objection or motion to strike the evidence at the
preliminary examination, by moving to set aside the indictment or information if the
only substantial evidence was illegally obtained and inadmissible, by bringing a
pretrial motion to suppress or compel the return of evidence, or by raising the issue by
objection or motion to strike at the trial. (4 Witkin & Epstein, Cal. Criminal Law (3d
ed. 2000) Illegally Obtained Evidence, §§ 354, 355, pp. 1038-1041.)
7
In 1872, the Legislature enacted Penal Code sections 1539 and 1540, providing
for a hearing to allow for the return of property seized pursuant to a search warrant.
Section 1538.5 was enacted in 1967 (Stats. 1967, ch. 1537, § 1, p. 3652.) In the same
act, section 1539 was amended to apply to special hearings held pursuant to section
1538.5. (Stats. 1967, ch. 1537, § 2, p. 3656.)
12

---

evidence before the magistrate bearing on this issue may be in conflict or
susceptible of conflicting inferences or consist only of the testimony of prosecution
witnesses” (italics added)]; People v. Haeberlin (1969) 272 Cal.App.2d 711, 715
[motion under sections 1539 and 1540 to quash a search warrant and for return of
property seized under the warrant heard during course of preliminary examination;
live testimony was received]; People v. Superior Court (Scofield) (1967) 249
Cal.App.2d 727, 729 [at pretrial hearing on defendants’ motion under sections
1539 and 1540 to quash a search warrant and for return of the property seized
under the warrant, defendants were “given the opportunity to introduce evidence
and did, in fact, produce some witnesses”].)
Notably, the People have failed to identify any California reported decision
rendered prior to the enactment of Penal Code section 1538.5 in which a party
attempted to present its evidence, at a hearing on a motion to suppress, on the
basis of affidavits. Nor is it surprising that there is no case that has approved such
a procedure in the almost 40 years since the adoption of section 1538.5, in view of
the language of sections 1538.5 and 1539 clearly demonstrating that live witness
testimony is intended. There is nothing in the history of section 1538.5 to counter
this conclusion or to otherwise suggest that in enacting the statute, the Legislature
intended any change in the type of evidence to be considered by a court in ruling
upon a motion to suppress evidence on search and seizure grounds.
Accordingly, our interpretation of the language of Penal Code section 1538.5
confirms California’s long-standing practice with regard to this well-developed
and universally utilized statutory procedure for suppressing evidence. Although,
as noted above, no court previously has decided the precise issue presented here,
the universal assumption in the years since the enactment of section 1538.5 always
has been that oral testimony is required at suppression hearings. (See, e.g., People
v. Lawler (1973) 9 Cal.3d 156, 160 [“ ‘ “A proceeding under section 1538.5 to
13

---

suppress evidence is one in which a full hearing is held on issues before the
superior court sitting as a finder of fact.” [Citation.]’ [Citation.] In such a
proceeding the power to judge the credibility of the witnesses, resolve any
conflicts in the testimony, weigh the evidence and draw factual inferences, is
vested in the trial court”]; see also Cal. Criminal Law: Procedure and Practice
(Cont. Ed. Bar 1986 ed.) § 20.1, p. 404 [“Once the defendant has shown that there
was no warrant, the burden is on the prosecution to justify the search. [Citation.]
The practical effect of this rule is that the prosecutor usually [subpoenas] the
police officers who conducted the search in cases in which there was no warrant,
and brings out on direct examination the reasons they conducted the search.”
(Italics added.)]; Cal. Criminal Law: Procedure and Practice (Cont. Ed. Bar 2005
ed.) § 16.1, p. 405 [“After both sides have presented all witnesses and evidence,
counsel may argue the motion.”]; 4 Witkin & Epstein, Cal. Criminal Law, supra,
Illegally Obtained Evidence, § 360, p. 1046 [“The judge or magistrate is required
to receive evidence on any issue of fact necessary to determine the motion.
[Citation.] The testimony must be reported and transcribed. [Citation.] The
statute did not alter the existing law on burden of proof. [¶] The defendant has the
initial burden of producing evidence to make out a prima facie case of an illegal
search or seizure. [Citations.] The burden is on the prosecution to establish by a
preponderance of the evidence the facts justifying a warrantless search.” (Italics
added.)].)8

8 Indeed, allowing a prosecutor to oppose a suppression motion with written
affidavits in lieu of live testimony would be inconsistent with the trial court’s vital
function of assessing the credibility of witnesses. (See, e.g., Hewitt v. Superior
Court (1970) 5 Cal.App.3d 923, 928 [“one of the reasons for requiring a witness to
testify in person [at a suppression hearing] is to enable the trier of fact to consider
the demeanor of the witness in weighing his testimony and judging his
credibility”].)
14

---

The People do not deny that the language of Penal Code sections 1538.5 and
1539 indicates that the Legislature contemplated that a hearing under section
1538.5 would involve the testimony of live witnesses or that the practice, in the
nearly 40 years the statute has been in effect, has been for the prosecution to
present the testimony of witnesses to satisfy its burden to establish the
reasonableness of a warrantless search and seizure. Nonetheless, the People base
the claim that the prosecution has a right to proceed by affidavit as an alternative
to live testimony in a section 1538.5 suppression hearing, on the provisions of
Code of Civil Procedure section 2009 (permitting use of affidavits in connection
with motions), Penal Code section 1102 (making civil rules of evidence applicable
to criminal actions),9 and Penal Code section 686 (making hearsay evidence
admissible in criminal actions to the extent it is otherwise admissible.)10 As
explained below, we find this argument unpersuasive.11

9
Penal Code section 1102 states: “The rules of evidence in civil actions are
applicable also to criminal actions, except as otherwise provided in this Code.”
10
Penal Code section 686, subdivision 3(a) provides a defendant with the right to
confront witnesses against him or her, in the presence of the court, except that
“[h]earsay evidence may be admitted to the extent that it is otherwise admissible in a
criminal action under the law of this state.”
11
In rejecting the affidavit, the trial court found that a section 1538.5 motion is
not a criminal action, but a special proceeding of a criminal nature, so that section
1102 did not make Code of Civil Procedure section 2009 applicable to suppression
hearings. The Court of Appeal disagreed, concluding that notwithstanding the
placement of section 1538.5 within title 12 of part 2 of the Penal Code entitled Special
Proceedings of a Criminal Nature, a suppression motion is a component part of the
underlying criminal action. As explained, in light of our conclusion that the language,
history, and purpose of sections 1538.5 and 1539 demonstrate that hearings under
section 1538.5 are to be based upon live testimony rather than affidavits, we have no
occasion to address the question of whether a section 1538.5 proceeding is a “special
proceeding of a criminal nature” or a “criminal action” or, indeed, whether it is
necessary or appropriate to distinguish between those two types of proceedings in the
present context.
15

---

Section 2009 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides in full: “An affidavit
may be used to verify a pleading or a paper in a special proceeding, to prove the
service of a summons, notice, or other paper in an action or special proceeding, to
obtain a provisional remedy, the examination of a witness, or a stay of
proceedings, and in uncontested proceedings to establish a record of birth, or upon
a motion, and in any other case expressly permitted by statute.” (Italics added.)
Code of Civil Procedure section 2009 does not itself make a hearsay affidavit
admissible at a suppression hearing. (See People v. Gardner (1893) 98 Cal. 127,
130-132; People v. Frank (1933) 132 Cal.App. 360, 367-368.) The People argue,
however, that because a motion to suppress under Penal Code section 1538.5
constitutes “a motion,” section 2009 should apply to a hearing on a motion
brought pursuant to section 1538.5. As noted above, Penal Code section 1102
states that civil rules of evidence apply in criminal actions “except as otherwise
provided in this Code.” As such, when other, more specific criminal statutes are
incompatible with a civil rule of evidence, the civil rule will not apply. The
language of Penal Code sections 1538.5 and 1539, which as explained above,
expressly contemplates the presentation of live testimony at section 1538.5
suppression hearings, “otherwise provide[s]” that the rule set forth in section
2009 ⎯ providing that affidavits are admissible “upon a motion” ⎯ does not
apply at suppression hearings held pursuant to section 1538.5.
Moreover, we note that a motion to suppress evidence on the basis of an
allegedly unconstitutional search and seizure is fundamentally different from the
types of preliminary or ancillary procedural matters specifically identified in Code
of Civil Procedure section 2009. In most if not all of the matters to which section
2009 applies, the underlying issue in question generally will be determined by the
court on the basis of affidavits alone, and it will be only in an unusual case that
live testimony by witnesses will be permitted. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule
16

---

323(a): “Evidence received at a law and motion hearing shall be by declaration,
affidavit, or request for judicial notice without testimony or cross-examination,
except as allowed in the court’s discretion for good cause shown.” (Italics added);
see also Lacrabere v. Wise (1904) 141 Cal. 554, 556-557 [noting that section 2009
“has no application to the proof of facts which are directly in controversy in an
action. It was not intended to have the effect of changing the rules of evidence by
substituting voluntary ex parte affidavits for the testimony of witnesses. The
section applies only to matters of procedure ⎯ matters collateral, ancillary or
incidental to an action of proceeding — and has no relation to proof of facts the
existence of which are made issues in the case, and which it is necessary to
establish to sustain a cause of action”]; Reifler v. Superior Court (1974) 39
Cal.App.3d 479, 483 [“Section 2009 is construed as empowering the trial court to
determine motions upon declarations alone and to allow the court discretion to
refuse oral testimony.”].)
At Penal Code section 1538.5 suppression hearings, by contrast, the language
of that statute and section 1539 makes it clear that such hearings routinely will
involve the live testimony of witnesses. Moreover, unlike the generally ancillary
matters addressed by Code of Civil Procedure section 2009, a motion to suppress
evidence on the ground a search was unconstitutional presents issues as to which
the credibility of witnesses often is of critical significance. Again, it is significant
that although both section 2009 and section 1539 first were enacted in 1872, and
since 1967 section 1538.5 has governed the procedure to be followed at a hearing
on a motion to suppress evidence on that ground, there is no indication that section
2009 ever has been applied to authorize the determination of a motion to suppress
17

---

evidence upon the affidavit of the investigating officer.12 In light of the clear
language of the statutes, and the uniform application of the statutory provisions for
many years, we conclude that, contrary to the People’s contention, section 2009
cannot reasonably be interpreted to authorize a party to proceed by affidavit at a
hearing under section 1538.5.13

12
The People’s reliance on federal law as persuasive authority is misplaced. The
federal rules expressly allow for the use of affidavits at pretrial suppression hearings.
Rule 12(b)(3)(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (18 U.S.C.), which
provides that a motion to suppress evidence must be made before trial, specifically
states that pretrial motions are governed by rule 47 of the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure (18 U.S.C.). Rule 47, in turn, provides that “[a] motion may be supported
by affidavit.” (Fed. Rule of Crim. Proc., rule 47(b), 18 U.S.C.) Thus, unlike the
California Penal Code, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure expressly and
unambiguously authorize the use of affidavits at pretrial motions to suppress
evidence. Moreover, there are no federal provisions with language as specific as
sections 1538.5 and 1539 ― that is, no rule or statute whose language specifically
refers to the presentation of oral testimony at suppression hearings.
13
To avoid any misunderstanding, we emphasize that our decision in this case
does not signify that Code of Civil Procedure section 2009 never can apply in
criminal proceedings or that affidavits never may be used in criminal cases. Many
California statutes expressly permit the use of affidavits in criminal cases (see, e.g.,
§§ 1181, subd. 8 [witnesses’ affidavits on motion for new trial on ground of newly
discovered evidence]; 1050, subd. (b) [affidavits supporting motion to continue
criminal hearing]), and numerous California decisions have applied section 2009 to a
variety of matters in criminal proceedings even when the use of affidavits is not
expressly prescribed by statute. (See, e.g., People v. Laws (1981) 120 Cal.App.3d
1022, 1033 [affidavit on motion regarding payment of restitution]; People v. Sahagun
(1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 1, 24 [in hearing on issue of prosecutorial delay, affidavit
would be admissible, but unsworn statements would not]; In re Krieger (1969) 272
Cal.App.2d 886, 889, fn. 2 [affidavits in habeas corpus proceedings]; People v. Albin
(1952) 111 Cal.App.2d 800, 806 [no “ ‘inalienable right’ ” to present testimony at
hearing regarding commitment, in light of the “practice of presenting affidavits or
depositions in support of such a motion”].)

Although we do not question the propriety of these decisions, we emphasize
that no previous case has applied Code of Civil Procedure section 2009 to a Penal
Code section 1538.5 hearing or any comparable proceeding. Nonetheless, although
section 2009 provides no basis for parties to proceed by affidavit in lieu of live
(footnote continued on next page)
18

---

The People’s reliance on Penal Code section 1204.5 is similarly misplaced.
Subdivision (a) of that statute provides: “In any criminal action, after the filing of
any complaint or other accusatory pleading and before a plea, finding, or verdict
of guilty, no judge shall read or consider any written report of any law
enforcement officer or witness to any offense, any information reflecting the arrest
or conviction record of a defendant, or any affidavit or representation of any kind,
verbal or written, without the defendant's consent given in open court, except as
provided in the rules of evidence applicable at the trial, or as provided in affidavits
in connection with the issuance of a warrant or the hearing of any law and motion
matter, or in any application for an order fixing or changing bail, or a petition for a
writ.”
The People contend that Penal Code section 1204.5 creates a hearsay
exception for admission of an affidavit at a Penal Code section 1538.5 suppression
hearing by authorizing a judge to “read or consider . . . affidavits in connection
with . . . the hearing of any law and motion matter.” As we already have remarked
above, however, unlike law and motion hearings where live testimony is permitted
only upon a showing of good cause, section 1538.5 suppression hearings routinely
will involve the live testimony of witnesses. Moreover, the purpose of section
1204.5 was to prevent preconviction consideration of irrelevant information such
as a defendant's arrest report or “rap” sheet (O'Neal v. Superior Court (1986) 185
Cal.App.3d 1086, 1091-1095), with the consideration of affidavits simply being

(footnote continued from previous page)
testimony in section 1538.5 suppression hearings, evidence consisting of oral or
written statements of witnesses that are otherwise admissible under the Evidence
Code or other statutes and are not expressly prohibited by section 1538.5, may, under
some circumstances not presented in this case, be offered and received at section
1538.5 hearings.
19

---

enumerated as one of the exceptions to the otherwise prohibited use of such
information. Section 1204.5, like Code of Civil Procedure section 2009, does not
in itself provide authorization for the use of affidavits at section 1538.5
suppression hearings.
Moreover, although the Court of Appeal below suggested that the issue
presented here is one of first impression, the opinion in Hewitt v. Superior Court,
supra, 5 Cal.App.3d 923, resolved a closely related issue in a manner that directly
supports our conclusion in the present case. In Hewitt, as here, the evidence in
question was obtained as the result of a warrantless search of an automobile, and
thus at the section 1538.5 hearing the burden was on the prosecution to prove the
search was reasonable. (Hewitt, supra, 5 Cal.App.3d at p. 926.) At the section
1538.5 hearing conducted in Hewitt, the prosecution offered only the transcript of
the preliminary examination, at which the officer had testified to the circumstances
of the defendant’s arrest and the search of the vehicle. Although the investigating
officer was present at the section 1538.5 hearing, the prosecution did not call the
officer as a witness at that hearing, and thus the judge who presided at the hearing
had no opportunity to assess the officer’s demeanor or credibility.
In Hewitt, the Court of Appeal concluded that the provisions of section
1538.5 in effect at that time (1970) precluded the prosecution from proceeding on
the basis of the preliminary examination transcript alone, in the absence of any
evidence that the officer was unavailable as a witness at the section 1538.5
hearing. In response to the Attorney General’s argument that any error in
admitting the preliminary examination transcript was harmless because the officer
was present at the section 1538.5 hearing and the defendant could have questioned
him about the search had he so desired, the court explained: “This argument fails
to recognize that the burden was on the prosecution, not the defense, to show that
the search was lawful; that burden must be based on competent evidence. . . .
20

---

Moreover, one of the reasons for requiring a witness to testify in person is to
enable the trier of fact to consider the demeanor of the witness in weighing his
testimony and judging his credibility. [Citation.] The judge who heard the section
1538.5 motion was not the magistrate who presided at the preliminary hearing.”
(Hewitt v. Superior Court, supra, 5 Cal.App.3d at p. 928.)
Penal Code section 1538.5 was amended after the Hewitt decision to provide
that when a motion to suppress evidence has been made at the preliminary
examination, evidence presented at the special hearing held under section 1538.5
generally shall be limited “to the transcript of the preliminary hearing and to
evidence that could not reasonably have been presented at the preliminary
hearing” (§1538.5, subd. (i), as added by Stats. 1986, ch. 52, § 1, p. 134). There is
no comparable language in section 1538.5, however, expressly authorizing the
prosecution to rely on a simple affidavit, as contrasted with the transcript of the
testimony presented at the preliminary examination, in meeting its burden of proof
at a section 1538.5 hearing with regard to the reasonableness of a search and
seizure conducted without a warrant. If the use of an affidavit were sufficient at
such a hearing, the prosecution would be permitted to meet its burden even though
no magistrate or judge (at either the preliminary examination or at the section
1538.5 proceeding) had the opportunity “to consider the demeanor of the witness
in weighing his testimony and judging his credibility.” (Hewitt v. Superior Court,
supra, 5 Cal.App.3d at p. 928.) Such a result clearly would be contrary to the
teaching of Hewitt.14

14
We also note that Code of Civil Procedure section 2009 was in effect at the
time of the proceedings in Hewitt. If the prosecution in Hewitt could have avoided the
outcome in that case simply by having the investigating officer submit an affidavit at
the Penal Code section 1538.5 hearing rather than submitting the transcript of the
(footnote continued on next page)
21

---

Accordingly, we conclude as a matter of statutory interpretation that the
Court of Appeal erred in holding that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure
section 2009 apply to a hearing conducted under Penal Code section 1538.5 and in
holding that those provisions authorize the use of affidavits, in lieu of live
testimony, at such hearings.15
III.
For the reasons stated above, we reverse the decision of the Court of
Appeal.
GEORGE, C. J.
WE CONCUR:

KENNARD, J.
BAXTER, J.
WERDEGAR, J.
CHIN, J.
MORENO, J.
CORRIGAN, J.

(footnote continued from previous page)
officer’s prior testimony, the Court of Appeal’s decision in Hewitt would have been
superfluous.
15
As noted at the outset, our conclusion that the statutory scheme contemplates
live testimony at section 1538.5 suppression hearings makes it unnecessary for us to
reach defendant’s constitutional claims. Additionally, because we have resolved the
issue presented on the basis of the language and legislative history of sections 1538.5
and 1539, we have no occasion to analyze or resolve several collateral points
discussed in the Court of Appeal’s opinion and by the parties in their briefing to this
court, regarding whether (1) a section 1538.5 hearing is an ancillary or component
part of the criminal action in which it is litigated, rather than a separate and
independent proceeding; (2) a section 1538.5 hearing generally is governed by the
rules of evidence applicable to civil actions; (3) the admissibility of evidence involves
a determination of a preliminary fact governed by the rules of evidence applicable at
trial; and (4) affidavits generally may be employed in determining preliminary facts.
22

---

See next page for addresses and telephone numbers for counsel who argued in Supreme Court.

Name of Opinion People v. Johnson
__________________________________________________________________________________

Unpublished Opinion

Original Appeal
Original Proceeding
Review Granted XXX 111 Cal.App.4th 341
Rehearing Granted

__________________________________________________________________________________

Opinion No.

S119230
Date Filed: May 22, 2006
__________________________________________________________________________________

Court:

Superior
County: Contra Costa
Judge: Peter L. Spinetta

__________________________________________________________________________________

Attorneys for Appellant:

Gary T. Yancey and Robert J. Kochly, District Attorneys, and Doug McMaster, Deputy District Attorney,
for Plaintiff and Appellant.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Attorneys for Respondent:

David C. Coleman III, Public Defender, Jonathan Laba and Ron Boyer, Deputy Public Defenders, for
Defendant and Respondent.

---

Counsel who argued in Supreme Court (not intended for publication with opinion):

Doug McMaster
Deputy District Attorney
725 Court Street, 4th Floor
Martinez, CA 94553
(925) 957-2268

Ron Boyer
Deputy Public Defender
800 Ferry Street
Martinez, CA 94553
(925) 335-8000

---

Opinion Information

Date:	Docket Number:
Mon, 05/22/2006	S119230

Disposition
May 22 2006	Opinion: Reversed

Dockets
Sep 24 2003	Petition for review filed   By counsel for Respondent {John Medley Johnson}.
Sep 24 2003	Record requested
Sep 24 2003	Received Court of Appeal record   file jacket/briefs/sealed envelope/accordian file
Nov 12 2003	Petition for Review Granted (criminal case)   Votes: George, C.J., Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar, Brown and Moreno, JJ.
Nov 26 2003	Request for extension of time filed   counsel for resp. requests an extension of time to January 30, 2004 to file the opening brief on the merits.
Dec 4 2003	Extension of time granted   Respondent's time to serve and file the opening brief on the merits is extended to and including January 30, 2004.
Jan 30 2004	Opening brief on the merits filed   by counsel for resp. (Johnson)
Feb 25 2004	Request for extension of time filed   by (Dist. Atty) counsel for aplt. (People) requests sixty (60) day extension of time to April 30, 2004, file the answer brief on the merits.
Mar 1 2004	Extension of time granted   Appellant's time to serve and file the answer brief on the merits is extended to and including April 30, 2004.
Apr 30 2004	Request for extension of time filed   counsel for aplt. (People) requests 90-day extension of time to July 29, 2004 to file the answer brief on the merits.
Jun 1 2004	Extension of time granted   Respondent's time to serve and file the opening brief is extended to and including July 29, 2004.
Jul 7 2004	Request for extension of time filed   counsel for aplt. (People) requests extension of time to October 27, 2004 to file the answer brief on the merits.
Jul 9 2004	Extension of time granted   Appellant's time to serve and file the answer brief is extended to and including October 27, 2004.
Oct 27 2004	Answer brief on the merits filed   by counsel for aplt. (People)
Nov 16 2004	Request for extension of time filed   counsel for resp. (Johnson) requests extension of time to December 31, 2004 to file the reply brief.
Nov 22 2004	Extension of time granted   respondent's time to serve and file the reply brief is extended to and including December 31, 2004.
Dec 30 2004	Reply brief filed (case fully briefed)   by counsel for resp. (Johnson)
Feb 8 2006	Case ordered on calendar   March 8, 2006, at 1:30 p.m., in San Francisco
Feb 17 2006	Filed letter from:   deputy Public Defender Ron Boyer on behalf of respondent Johnson "... As counsel for Respondent Johnson, I hereby stipulate to the participation of Justice Chin in the case, even though he will not be present at oral argument."
Feb 21 2006	Filed letter from:   deputy District Attorney Doug MacMaster on behalf of appellant The People "The People fo the State of Calfiornia (Plaintiff and Appellant), stipulate to Justice Chin's participation in this case, even though he will not be present at oral argument."
Mar 8 2006	Cause argued and submitted
May 22 2006	Opinion filed: Judgment reversed   OPINION BY: George, C.J. --- joined by : Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, Moreno, Corrigan, JJ.
Aug 18 2006	Remittitur issued (criminal case)
Aug 28 2006	Received:   from CA 1/2 receipt for remittitur.

Briefs
Jan 30 2004	Opening brief on the merits filed
Oct 27 2004	Answer brief on the merits filed
Dec 30 2004	Reply brief filed (case fully briefed)

If you'd like to submit a brief document to be included for this opinion, please submit an e-mail to the SCOCAL website