Yes. A sealed affidavit does not prevent a court from reviewing whether the sealing is justified and whether the warrant supports the search. The judge can examine confidential material privately, through an in-camera hearing. That process does not guarantee disclosure of the informant’s identity or full affidavit, or exclusion of evidence. Penal Code sections 1534 and 1538.5; People v. Hobbs.

Start with the warrant record you can obtain

Ask counsel to identify the warrant, return, public affidavit or redacted version, sealing order, and evidence seized. Penal Code section 1534 addresses the return and public record for an executed warrant, while confidential material may remain sealed when disclosure would reveal a protected informant. A public-record request and a challenge to warrant validity are related but different steps. Penal Code section 1534; Evidence Code sections 1041 and 1042.

A properly noticed motion to quash or traverse can ask the court to review the sealed material. In People v. Hobbs, the California Supreme Court described a court-led process: the judge examines whether sealing is necessary and whether nonconfidential portions can safely be disclosed, then reviews the warrant grounds. A quash challenge addresses probable cause; a traverse challenge addresses deliberate or reckless falsehoods or omissions material to probable cause. Counsel may submit reasonable written questions for the court’s review, but the defendant and counsel ordinarily do not attend the confidential portion. The court preserves the sealed record for review. People v. Hobbs; Penal Code section 1538.5.

What the process can and cannot reveal

If the judge finds a reasonable probability the defense would prevail on the warrant challenge, the prosecutor must have the choice to disclose the sealed material so the motion can proceed, or accept an adverse ruling on that motion. Other portions may remain confidential when their disclosure would expose a protected informant. A defendant is not entitled to an informant’s identity simply because the person supplied information for a warrant; whether an informant is a material witness to guilt is a separate question under the Evidence Code. Evidence Code sections 1041 and 1042.

The possible result depends on the actual warrant, confidential information, search, and motion record. Counsel should also check the case posture and applicable section 1538.5 procedures; timing differs by posture, so there is no single deadline to assume.

The Law Offices of David S. Chesley handles California criminal defense matters. Call (800) 755-5174 to discuss the warrant papers and court record.