Cuevas v. Superior Court

Summary

The California Court of Appeal held that Penal Code section 1538.5, subdivision (b), uses permissive rather than mandatory language and did not prevent defendants from moving to suppress evidence at a preliminary hearing under subdivision (f). Because the magistrate refused to hear the suppression motion and all prosecution evidence stemmed from the challenged search warrant, the defendants were illegally committed. The court ordered a peremptory writ of prohibition restraining further proceedings other than dismissal.

Holdings

1. The word "should" in section 1538.5, subdivision (b), is permissive and recommendatory, not mandatory; the provision does not bar a defendant from making the suppression motion at the preliminary hearing under subdivision (f).
2. Petitioners had a statutory right to move at the preliminary hearing to suppress evidence obtained under the allegedly invalid search warrant, and the magistrate's refusal to hear the motion denied that right.
3. Because petitioners were prevented from exercising their statutory right to present the suppression motion and all of the People's evidence stemmed from the warrant, they were illegally committed and the denial of their section 995 motion was erroneous.
4. A peremptory writ of prohibition was proper because the record fully presented the determinative issues and petitioners were entitled to relief from further proceedings based on the illegal commitment.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Penal Code section 1538.5, subdivision (b)'s direction that a suppression motion should first be heard by the warrant-issuing magistrate is mandatory or permissive.
2. Whether a defendant charged with a felony initiated by complaint has a statutory right under Penal Code section 1538.5, subdivision (f), to move to suppress evidence at the preliminary hearing in the municipal or justice court, even when the search warrant was issued by a superior court judge.
3. Whether refusal to hear that suppression motion resulted in an illegal commitment requiring the information to be set aside under Penal Code section 995.
4. Whether a peremptory writ of prohibition was the proper remedy.

Disposition

writ_granted