What is the current state of the law on a search warrant for firearms seized by a police officer?

An officer may constitutionally search for instruments or fruits of a crime, contraband or evidence of criminal activity. (Warden v. Hayden (1967) 387 U.S. 294, 310, 87 S.Ct. 1642, 18 L.Ed.2d 782, 793-794.) Appellant urges this court to require that an officer engaged in a search have probable cause (i.e., specific articulable

Page 914

We choose not to impose that requirement. Appellant's argument puts the cart before the horse. It would demand that an investigating officer know in advance and with substantial certainty which items will be of evidentiary use at trial. This creates a severe and illogical burden. The primary invasion of privacy occurs in the search itself. Seizure of items, subject to an accounting and eventual return to their owner, is not a new and independent infringement of constitutional rights which would justify the separate high standard of probable cause suggested by appellant. (See Warden v. Hayden, supra, 387 U.S. at 309-310, 87 S.Ct. 1642, 18 L.Ed.2d at 793.)

We therefore hold that before an item discovered in the course of a lawful search can be seized, an officer needs only a reasonable belief that the item may be evidence of the commission of a crime. (See People v. Teale, 70 Cal.2d 497, 511, 75 Cal.Rptr. 172, 450 P.2d 564.) In the instant case, the officer's investigative experience in narcotics cases made reasonable his seizure of the firearms.