# People v. Kurland

> California Supreme Court · October 30, 1980 · 28 Cal. 3d 376

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9616977

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STUART LEE KURLAND, Defendant and Respondent
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** October 30, 1980
- **Citations:** 28 Cal. 3d 376; 168 Cal. Rptr. 667; 618 P.2d 213; 1980 Cal. LEXIS 223
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Clark
- **Judges:** Newman, Clark, Bird
- **Cited by:** 94 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9616977

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that the “crucial, inference-drawing powers of the magistrate” are hindered as much by omissions as by outright misstatements in an affidavit

## Opinion text

CLARK, J.
I concur in the judgment and opinion of the court except insofar as it reaffirnjs the holding of People v. Cook (1978) 22 Cal.3d 67 [ 148 Cal.Rptr. 605 , 583 P.2d 130 ]—that evidence obtained pursuant to a warrant issued in reliance on an affidavit containing deliberately false statements of fact must be excluded regardless of the effect of those statements on probable cause. I continue to believe the appropriate remedy in such a case is for the judge conducting the Theodor 1 hearing to entirely reweigh the affiant’s credibility if he is found tb have lied in part: ( 22 Cal.3d at p. 101 (Clark, J., dis.).)
Theodor v. Superior Court (1972) 8 Cal.3d 77 [ 104 Cal.Rptr. 226 , 501 P.2d 234 ].
Where the omitted adverse facts are merely cumulative, the warrant should stand. While this exception to the rule of exclusion might encourage law enforcement personnel to substitute their assessments of relevance for that of the magistrate, this will be at most a minor tendency. As the discussion below suggests, the magistrate’s determination of probable cause will not be suspect in such cases, despite the police’s breach of their constitutional duty to inform the magistrate of all relevant adverse information known to them. Thus, suppression is not warranted as a means of enforcing the Fourth Amendment in this limited situation.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9616977. Public record. Not legal advice.