Is a search warrant valid if it authorizes the search of more than one location for the same property?

In this connection, defendant's argument apparently rests on the erroneous theory that a warrant which authorizes the search of more than one location for the same property is per se invalid. He urges that the authorization to search four different places demonstrates that the affiant did not know where the sought-after property actually was located. However, "certainty is not required" to justify issuance of a search warrant. (People v. Watson (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 376, 385, 152 Cal.Rptr. 471.) There is no logical inconsistency in the conclusion that an affidavit establishes probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime will be in any one of a suspect's homes or vehicles.

[34 Cal.3d 871] Defendant next asserts that the affidavit supporting the search warrant intentionally omitted material information. In challenging a search warrant based on an affidavit containing omissions, a defendant bears the burden of showing both that there were omissions and that they were material. (People v. Kurland (1980) 28 Cal.3d 376, 390, 168 Cal.Rptr. 667, 618 P.2d 213.) A fact is material if its "omission would make the affidavit substantially misleading." (Id., at p. 385, 168 Cal.Rptr. 667, 618 P.2d 213, italics in original.) That is, the omission is material if "there is a substantial possibility [that its inclusion] would have altered a reasonable magistrate's probable cause determination." (Ibid.) If an omission is immaterial, the warrant will not be quashed unless the defendant can show that information was intentionally omitted in order to mislead the magistrate or in reckless disregard of the accuracy of the warrant. (Id., at pp. 387, 390, 168 Cal.Rptr. 667, 618 P.2d 213.)