The California Supreme Court held some 25 years ago that in limited circumstances, a court is empowered to seal a search warrant and/or any attached affidavits pending later court hearings. (See People v. Hobbs (1994) 7 Cal.4th 948.) The net effect is to prevent the public in general, and a targeted defendant in particular, from viewing the contents of the search warrant or affidavit at issue. The purpose of such a sealing is to allow law enforcement to prevent having to reveal sensitive information such as (but not necessarily limited to) an informant’s identity which is sometimes necessary to insure the informant’s safety or to preserve the integrity of an on-going investigation. Being an exception to the general rule that search warrants—once executed—are public records (P.C. § 1534(a)), sealing a warrant requires the magistrate’s approval. “Hobbs warrants,” as they are commonly labeled, are not always favorably looked upon by the courts. In People v. Theilen (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 326 (depublished), the author of the opinion criticized the procedure and argued that U.S. Supreme Court authority (Waller v. Georgia (1984) 467 U.S. 39, discussing the closure of a suppression hearing to the public) requires the prosecution to demonstrate an “overriding interest” and potential prejudice unless the warrant is sealed. More recently, the California Supreme Court has ordered Gov. Gavin Newsom to justify the sealing of his clemency requests for six twiceconvicted felons, telling him that the public has a right to know his reasons absent an “overriding interest” in keeping his requests sealed. (Los Angeles Daily Journal: “Newsom must redo sealed clemency requests,” May 28, 2019.) Despite this, various law enforcement agencies periodically get into the habit of asking to seal warrants on a reoccurring basis, and without always showing an “overriding interest” for doing so. Under the theory that “bad facts make for bad case law,” it is strongly suggested that officers not request a warrant and/or affidavit to be sealed unless it is really necessary. Defendants have a substantial “due process” right to know the basis for the People’s case against them, and cannot legally be deprived of that right without sufficient justification; i.e., an “overriding interest.” While there is not yet any case law on what (and under what circumstances) sanctions might be imposed for unnecessarily sealing a warrant, you don’t want that case when it does come to be yours
