A search warrant was obtained to search Hale’s home based on an officer’s belief that Hale had shown pornographic materials to a minor. The affidavit stated that a ten-year-old minor had claimed that Hale had shown him a pornographic movie, and two other minor boys had made substantially similar claims. Searching officers found a large quantity of marijuana. Hale was subsequently charged not with a violation of Penal Code section 313.1, but instead with possession of marijuana for sale. Hale challenged the statement of probable cause in the warrant. The appellate court affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress. It was reasonable to assume that the purpose of showing minor boys pornography was to arouse the minors to seduce them. Further, the warrant is valid because the oath signed by the officer on the face of the warrant necessarily implies that the facts in the statement of probable cause are true. (Disagreeing with People v. Leonard (1996) 50 Cal.App. 4th 878, which holds otherwise.)