Opinion ID: 2055636
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Validity of the arrest warrant.

Text: Section 804.1 provides in part: A criminal proceeding may be commenced by the filing of a complaint before a magistrate. When such complaint is made . . . and it appears from the complaint or from affidavits filed with it that there is probable cause to believe an offense has been committed and a designated person committed it, the magistrate shall ... issue a warrant for the arrest of such person. (emphasis added.) The State contends the emphasized provision in the statute reflects the legislature's intent to expedite procedure by allowing an officer to submit to a magistrate an affidavit rather than be physically present to testify under oath. Either procedure, it argues, is sufficient under section 804.1. The defendant, however, argues that the failure of the magistrate to base the probable cause determination on a written complaint or affidavit was fatal to the warrant. The theory of the State is that the purpose of the complaint or affidavit requirement is served whenever an accused is afforded some record of the arrest warrant proceeding with which he may attack the warrant. Cf. State v. Boyd, 224 N.W.2d 609, 616 (Iowa 1974) (recordation procedure of probable cause determination in issuing search warrant designed to insure availability of the evidence for the defendant); State v. Spier, 173 N.W.2d 854, 862 (Iowa 1970) (search warrant recordation procedure undoubtedly permit[s] a more accurate and meaningful judicial review of the `probable cause' showing upon which a warrant issuing magistrate acted). Moreover, the State argues, sworn, oral testimony, which is recorded and preserved, is preferred over a written record because a magistrate is free to question the testifying witnesses. In any event, the State concludes, the taping of the proceeding, while perhaps not conforming to the letter of the statute, at least came within its spirit. While its statutory predecessors did not expressly require a finding of probable cause, see §§ 754.1, .3, The Code 1977, it is clear the present section 804.1 does. Our present section is very similar to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 4, which was addressed in Giordenello and provides in part: If it appears from the complaint that there is probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed and that the defendant has committed it, a warrant for the arrest of the defendant shall issue to any officer authorized by law to execute it.... Fed.R.Crim.P. 4(a). Decisions interpreting the federal rule indicate that the factual basis for a probable-cause finding must appear on the face of the complaint or supporting affidavit. See Giordenello v. United States, 357 U.S. at 487, 78 S.Ct. at 1250, 2 L.Ed.2d at 1510 (issue of probable cause ... [must] be determined . . . and an adequate basis for such a finding . . . [must] appear on the face of the complaint); United States v. Roth, 391 F.2d 507, 509 (7th Cir. 1968). It is true that this case is distinguishable from the cases interpreting federal rule 4(a) in that the supporting oral testimony was tape-recorded and thus accurately preserved for review. We held in State v. Paschal, 300 N.W.2d 115, 119 (Iowa 1981), that recorded oral testimony could be considered as part of the factual basis for issuance of a search warrant under section 808.3, The Code 1977. The Paschal case, however, must be distinguished upon two important bases: (1) section 808.3 itself provides for oral testimony to be taken by the magistrate, while section 804.1 does not; and (2) the tape-recorded evidence in Paschal was referred to in the magistrate's abstract, which in effect made it a part of the affidavit. See United States v. Mendel, 578 F.2d 668, 670-71 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 964, 99 S.Ct. 450, 58 L.Ed.2d 422 (1978). We conclude that the requirement of section 804.1 is clear: the probable cause finding for issuance of an arrest warrant must be based upon the complaint or accompanying affidavits. The finding here, based upon extrinsic evidence, did not comport with the statute, and the district court was correct in so ruling.