In reviewing a motion to suppress, what is the state of the law on the interpretation of the affidavit?

In reviewing denial of a motion to suppress, the trial court's findings must be upheld if they are supported by substantial evidence. (People v. Nosler (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 125, 130, 198 Cal.Rptr. 653)

" '[I]t is well settled that " '[t]he warrant can be upset only if the affidavit fails as a matter of law to set forth sufficient competent evidence supportive of the magistrate's finding of probable cause since it is the function of the trier of fact, not the reviewing court, to appraise and weigh evidence when presented by affidavit...." ' (Italics in original.) [Citations.] In examining the affidavit for sufficiency of the facts therein to support the magistrate's finding of probable cause, it is axiomatic that the courts are to interpret the affidavit in a common sense, non-technical manner. [Citations.] The reviewing court will pay substantial deference to the magistrate's determination of probable cause [citation] and may sustain a search where one without a warrant would fail [citation].' (People v. Emanuel (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 205, 212-213 [151 Cal.Rptr. 44].)" (McKirdy v. Superior Court (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 12, 24, 188 Cal.Rptr. 143.)