Opinion ID: 1448287
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the search warrant was invalid

Text: We address first the question of the sufficiency of an unsigned warrant as this underlies all issues raised in the post-conviction appeal. It is factually undisputed that the search warrant for the Henry home, where the murder weapon and shoes were discovered, [1] was not signed by a magistrate when the search took place on January 13, 1992. On January 13, 1992, Officer Greene took the proposed warrant, affidavit and acknowledgement of oath from the deputy prosecuting attorney to the district court where Magistrate Elliott reviewed the documents pertaining to the Henry home. He examined the request for a search warrant and witnessed the signature by Officer Greene on the affidavit. Judge Elliott then signed the acknowledgment on the affidavit and the acknowledgment of oath. In Judge Elliott's affidavit filed in the course of this post-conviction relief proceeding, he stated he found that probable cause existed to believe that the evidence mentioned in the affidavit could be found at the Henry home and that he fully intended to sign the warrant. He then swears: Apparently I forgot. Nevertheless, I fully intended to issue the search warrant to the B & D Henry residence as a valid search warrant. The fact that I neglected to sign the search warrant should in no way be taken to mean that I did not think probable cause existed or that I intended to in any way hinder the execution of the search warrant I was issuing. Thus, the critical question before this Court is as follows: Do the Constitution of the State of Idaho, the statutes governing the issuance of search warrants, and the Idaho Criminal Rules require a magistrate or district judge's signature in order for a search warrant to be validly issued. This is a case of first impression in the State of Idaho. Both parties have cited authority from other jurisdictions supporting their respective positions. This Court from its earliest interpretation of Article I, § 17 of the Idaho Constitution, has held that the right afforded individuals to protection of their persons and homes is so fundamental as to require strict adherence to the constitutional and statutory requirements. Art. 1, sec. 17 of the constitution, provides: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue without probable cause shown by affidavit, particularly describing the place to be searched and the person or thing to be seized. The right protected by the above provision of our constitution has been deemed of so great importance that a similar provision is found in the constitution of the United States and in the constitution of nearly every state in the Union. Under such constitutional provisions, it is uniformly held that the search-warrant must conform strictly to the constitutional and statutory provisions providing for its issuance. Purkey v. Maby, 33 Idaho 281, 283, 193 P. 79, 79 (1920). Idaho Code §§ 19-4401, -4406, and -4407 were adopted in 1864. This is the first case where this Court is urged to approve a warrant that was not signed by a magistrate or district judge. Idaho Code § 19-4401 provides as follows: Search warrant defined.A search warrant is an order in writing, in the name of the state of Idaho, signed by a magistrate, judge or justice directed to an officer or officers named therein, or other officer authorized by law to execute search warrants directing the officer to search for and seize property or intangibles. Idaho Code § 19-4406 requires the signature of the judge also: Issuance of warrant.If the magistrate is thereupon satisfied of the existence of the grounds of the application, or that there is probable cause to believe their existence, he must issue a search warrant, signed by him with his name of office, to a peace officer in his county, commanding him forthwith to search the person or place named, for the property specified, and to bring it before the magistrate. Idaho Code § 19-4407 provides a form of warrant which clearly contemplates being signed by a magistrate or district judge. The state urges that the rules of this Court should prevail over the clear statutory authority contained in Idaho Code §§ 19-4401 and 19-4406 requiring the signature of the court. Idaho Criminal Rule 41 provides that [a] search warrant authorized by this rule may be issued by a district judge or magistrate.... Idaho Criminal Rule 41 is not in conflict with the statute or the constitution. Idaho Code §§ 19-4401, 19-4406, and 19-4407 predate the Constitution of the State of Idaho. These code sections create a substantive right in a citizen to refuse to permit a search pursuant to an unsigned warrant. This substantive right existed prior to the adoption of this State's Constitution. This substantive right was affirmed by Article XXI, Section 2 of the Idaho Constitution which provides: Laws continued in force.All laws now in force in the territory of Idaho which are not repugnant to this Constitution shall remain in force until they expire by their own limitation or be altered or repealed by the legislature. Article I, Section 17 of the Idaho Constitution further establishes the substantive rights of citizens to require a valid warrant for officers to search their home. The requirement of a signed warrant enables a citizen to know that the search by the officer has in fact been authorized by a magistrate or district judge and is not being conducted at the whim or caprice of the officer. In this case, Ms. Henry exercised her right to question the validity of the warrant. The police officers gained admittance through deception. Once the lack of a signature is discovered or raised, the search must stop until such time as the lack of a signature may be corrected by the signature of the magistrate. Failure to supply the signature once it is challenged will vitiate any further search under the warrant. Evidence obtained in such an unauthorized search is not admissible.