Updated October 2026 | The Bulldog Law | California Criminal Defense

To quash is to void. A motion to quash asks the court to declare that a warrant, a subpoena, or the service of a legal document is invalid and has no effect. In California criminal practice the motion appears in three places. A motion to quash a search warrant, brought under Penal Code 1538.5, attacks the warrant on its face, arguing that the affidavit did not establish probable cause or that the warrant did not describe the place and the items with particularity; its companion, the motion to traverse, attacks the truth of the affidavit. A motion to quash a subpoena asks the court to excuse a witness or a records custodian from producing testimony or documents that are privileged, protected, irrelevant, or oppressively demanded. A motion to quash service challenges whether a defendant was properly brought before the court at all. A bench warrant is not quashed; it is recalled, by appearing, which is a different process entirely.

The Bulldog Law's attorneys bring motions to quash in each of those forms, and the search warrant motion is the one that ends cases. A drug case built on a search of a home, a fraud case built on a search of accounts and phones, a firearm case built on a search of a car under a warrant obtained on an informant's tip: in each the warrant is the foundation, and a warrant that does not survive a motion to quash takes the evidence with it. The subpoena motion protects the client's own records, and the records of the people around the client, from a prosecution that casts a wide net. What follows is what each motion requires, how it is decided, and what happens when it is granted. Call (888) 928-1609 or message our team.

Quashing a search warrant

A search warrant is reviewed, when challenged, on what the magistrate saw when issuing it: the affidavit, and nothing else. A motion to quash argues that the affidavit, taken as true and read in its entirety, did not provide the magistrate with a substantial basis for finding probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime would be found at the place to be searched, under the totality-of-the-circumstances standard of Illinois v. Gates. The motion is brought under Penal Code 1538.5, the same statute that governs the motion to suppress for warrantless searches, on the ground that the warrant was insufficient on its face or that there was not probable cause for its issuance.

The grounds that succeed. An affidavit that rests on an informant's tip without establishing the informant's reliability or basis of knowledge, or without corroboration of the criminal details. An affidavit that establishes probable cause for a crime but not for the connection between the crime and the place to be searched, the nexus requirement, which fails in cases where officers assume a suspect's home contains evidence without saying why. Stale information, an observation weeks or months old offered to justify a search today, where the nature of the evidence does not suggest it would persist. Conclusory statements, the officer's belief without the facts behind it. And boilerplate about how drug dealers or fraudsters generally behave, offered in place of facts about this suspect. Our attorneys read every affidavit against these requirements, and the page on search warrant requirements describes what the affidavit must contain.

Particularity is the second ground. The Fourth Amendment requires that a warrant particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized, and Penal Code 1525 and 1529 repeat the requirement. A warrant for all records, all electronic devices, or any evidence of any crime is a general warrant, and the evidence seized under it is suppressed; a warrant for a multi-unit building without specifying the unit, or for a phone without limiting the categories of data, is attacked the same way. Digital searches have become the frontier of particularity litigation, and our attorneys challenge warrants that authorize the search of an entire phone or account for evidence of a single transaction.

Traverse: attacking the affidavit's truth

A motion to quash accepts the affidavit as written. A motion to traverse does not. Under Franks v. Delaware and California's People v. Luttenberger, a defendant who makes a substantial preliminary showing that the affiant included a false statement knowingly and intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth, or omitted material facts with the same state of mind, is entitled to a hearing at which the affiant testifies. If the defense proves the falsity by a preponderance, the false material is excised, the omitted material is inserted, and the affidavit is re-read for probable cause; if it fails, the warrant is quashed and the evidence suppressed. The showing requires more than a denial; it requires an offer of proof, affidavits, or evidence that the officer's account was false, which our attorneys build from the officer's prior reports, the bodycam, the informant's record, and the physical facts. Quash and traverse are brought together, in one motion, because the first is decided on the paper and the second on the hearing.

The good-faith exception

A quashed warrant does not always suppress the evidence. Under United States v. Leon, evidence seized by officers who reasonably relied on a warrant later found invalid is admitted, because excluding it would not deter police conduct. The exception has four limits, and they are the defense's argument: it does not apply where the magistrate was misled by a false affidavit, where the magistrate abandoned the judicial role, where the affidavit was so lacking in indicia of probable cause that reliance on it was unreasonable, or where the warrant was so facially deficient in particularity that officers could not reasonably presume it valid. A motion to quash therefore argues not only that the warrant was invalid but that its invalidity was obvious, and the cases won on quash are the ones where the affidavit was bare. Our attorneys' page on the exclusionary rule explains the doctrine, and the page on challenging search warrants under Penal Code 1524 covers the statutory grounds.

Quashing a subpoena

A subpoena commands a witness to appear, and a subpoena duces tecum commands the production of documents, records, or things. In a criminal case either side may issue them, and either side, or the person served, may move to quash. California's standard comes from Code of Civil Procedure 1987.1, applied in criminal cases through Penal Code 1326 and the courts' inherent authority: the court may quash a subpoena entirely, modify it, or direct compliance on terms, to protect the person served from unreasonable or oppressive demands, including unreasonable violations of privacy.

The grounds. Privilege: records protected by the attorney-client, psychotherapist-patient, physician-patient, or spousal privileges, which the holder may assert by motion. Constitutional privacy: medical records, financial records, and communications, which California's constitution protects and which require a showing of relevance and need that outweighs the intrusion; our attorneys' pages on employment records and electronic data subpoenas cover those categories. Overbreadth: a subpoena for all records over years when the case concerns a week. Lack of particularity: a demand that does not describe what is sought. Relevance: a fishing expedition for impeachment material with no showing that it exists. And defective service: a subpoena not personally served, not accompanied by the required fees, or served with inadequate time to comply.

The procedure. The motion is filed before the date for compliance, served on the issuing party, and heard by the trial court; the records, if produced pending the ruling, go to the court under seal. The judge may order in camera review, reading the records privately to decide what, if anything, is relevant and must be disclosed, which is the usual resolution for medical and personnel records. A defense subpoena for a police officer's personnel file follows its own procedure, the Pitchess motion under Evidence Code 1043, which is a request for disclosure rather than a subpoena and is not quashed but denied or granted. A witness who ignores a subpoena rather than moving to quash it is in contempt, and a bench warrant issues; the motion is the lawful way to resist, as our pages on subpoenas and the rights of witnesses and defendants explain.

From the defense side, the motion is the tool for protecting the client's own records from the prosecution: a subpoena to the client's doctor, employer, bank, or phone carrier is quashed or narrowed on privacy and relevance grounds, and the records that are produced are reviewed by the court first. It is also the tool the prosecution uses against defense subpoenas, and a defense subpoena for the complaining witness's records must survive the same analysis, with a showing of good cause that our attorneys prepare before serving it, because a quashed defense subpoena is a lost source of evidence.

Quashing service and a bench warrant: what the motion is not

A motion to quash service of process, common in civil cases, is rare in criminal ones; a criminal defendant is brought before the court by arrest or citation, not by service of a complaint, and defects in that process are raised as challenges to the arrest, to the arrest warrant, or to jurisdiction rather than by a motion to quash. The motion does appear in criminal-adjacent proceedings, restraining order petitions and contempt actions, where service is required and was defective.

Most people searching for how to quash a warrant mean a bench warrant, issued for a missed court date, and the answer is that it is not quashed; it is recalled. The defendant appears in court, or counsel appears on a misdemeanor, the court recalls the warrant, and the matter that generated it, the failure to appear, the unpaid fine, the probation violation, is addressed. There is no motion, no affidavit, and no hearing on validity, because the warrant was valid; the defendant missed court. Our attorneys' page on bench warrants covers the recall process. An arrest warrant issued on a complaint is likewise not quashed by motion; the defendant surrenders or is arrested, and the probable cause for the charge is tested at the preliminary hearing. A motion to quash, in the strict sense, is for search warrants and subpoenas, and the distinction matters because a client who believes a bench warrant can be litigated away by motion will wait, and the warrant will not.

What a granted motion does

A quashed search warrant suppresses everything seized under it and everything derived from it, subject to the good-faith exception, and the prosecution in a case built on the search dismisses or appeals. The ruling is made under Penal Code 1538.5 with the same renewal and review provisions as any suppression ruling: a motion denied at the preliminary hearing may be renewed in the superior court, a denial may be reviewed by writ, and the issue survives a guilty plea. A quashed subpoena excuses the witness or custodian, and the party that issued it may reissue a narrower one or seek the material by other means. A quashed service requires the party to serve again, properly, if it can.

The motion to quash is procedural, and the procedure is where it is won or lost: the written motion with the affidavit attached and its deficiencies identified paragraph by paragraph, the offer of proof for a traverse, the privilege log for a subpoena motion, and the hearing at which the officer or the custodian is examined. Our attorneys bring the search warrant motion in every case in which a warrant produced the evidence, because an affidavit that looked sufficient to a magistrate at two in the morning frequently does not look sufficient to a judge with the defense's brief in hand.

Frequently asked questions

What does it mean to quash something in court?

To void or set it aside. A motion to quash asks the judge to declare a warrant, a subpoena, a summons, or service of process invalid, so that it has no effect. In a criminal case the term appears most often in two contexts: a motion to quash a search warrant, which attacks the warrant's validity so the evidence it produced can be suppressed, and a motion to quash a subpoena, which asks the court to excuse a witness or a records custodian from complying.

What is the difference between a motion to quash and a motion to traverse a search warrant?

A motion to quash attacks the warrant on its face: the affidavit, read as written, did not establish probable cause, or the warrant failed to describe the place or items with particularity. A motion to traverse attacks what is behind the face: the affidavit contained deliberate or reckless false statements or omissions, and without them there was no probable cause. Quash is decided on the four corners of the affidavit; traverse requires a hearing under Franks v. Delaware where the defense proves the falsity. In California both are brought under Penal Code 1538.5, usually together.

Can you quash a subpoena in a criminal case?

Yes. A witness or a third party served with a subpoena, or the defendant whose records are sought, can move to quash on the grounds that the subpoena is unreasonable or oppressive, seeks privileged or constitutionally protected material, was not properly served, or does not describe the materials with reasonable particularity. The motion is heard before the compliance date, and the judge may quash it entirely, modify it, or order the records produced to the court for in camera review.

How do you quash a warrant in California?

It depends on the warrant. A search warrant is quashed by a motion under Penal Code 1538.5, which if granted suppresses the evidence. An arrest warrant or bench warrant is not quashed in the same sense; the defendant appears or an attorney appears on the defendant's behalf, the court recalls the warrant, and the underlying matter is addressed. People searching for how to quash a bench warrant usually mean recalling it, which is a different process.

What happens if a motion to quash a search warrant is granted?

The warrant is declared invalid and everything seized under it is suppressed, along with evidence derived from it, under the exclusionary rule. The prosecution cannot use the evidence at trial and, in a case built on the search, usually dismisses. The good-faith exception can save evidence seized under a warrant that officers reasonably relied on, which is why the defense argues that the affidavit was so deficient that no reasonable officer could have believed it supported probable cause.

Related reading from our attorneys

• The motion to suppress under Penal Code 1538.5
• Search warrant requirements under Penal Code 1523
• Subpoenas: your rights as a witness or defendant

The evidence came from a warrant, or a subpoena has arrived? The document itself is the first thing we attack

The Bulldog Law's defense attorneys bring motions to quash and traverse search warrants and motions to quash subpoenas in criminal cases across California, with the affidavit, the records, and the officer on the stand. Visit our criminal defense page, call (888) 928-1609, or reach us online.