Opinion ID: 1765297
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: was evidence obtained in violation of brown's constitutional rights?

Text: Evidence introduced at trial was obtained in three searches. Three separate search warrants were issued on October 17, 1985, March 14, 1986, and March 25, 1986. One affidavit was used for the issuance of all three warrants. Warrants two and three were issued based on additional statements of victims. Brown asserts that because there was an improper return in the October search warrant, it was invalid and the evidence obtained was subject to suppression. Because evidence obtained in the October search was used to obtain the second and third warrants, these were also fatally defective. At a pre-trial hearing, the trial court overruled Brown's motion to suppress the evidence obtained in these searches. Brown did not cite any authority supporting his argument, nor did he state how he was prejudiced by the alleged flaws in the warrants. This Court is under no obligation to consider this error without citation to authority. Clark v. State, 503 So.2d 277 (Miss. 1987); Kelly v. State, 463 So.2d 1070 (Miss. 1985); Redmon v. State, 457 So.2d 1344 (Miss. 1984). Appellant has a duty to support an assignment with authority, Shive v. State, 507 So.2d 898 (Miss. 1987); Pate v. State, 419 So.2d 1324 (Miss. 1982); an assignment of error lacking authority lacks persuasion on review. Smith v. State, 430 So.2d 406 (Miss. 1983). However, in the interest of justice we will examine validity of the warrants and the issue of the improper return. The return and inventory of a search warrant subsequent to its execution is a ministerial act. Wince v. State, 206 Miss. 189, 39 So.2d 882 (1949). This court in Wince adopted the rule stated in 56 C.J. p. 1246, Sec. 166 as follows: The failure of an officer to make a return of a search warrant properly issued and served will not invalidate the search warrant, or a search and seizure made thereunder, even where the statute requires the return within a certain time, the return being merely a ministerial act, which may be performed later. Thus the omission to make a full return is an irregularity that may be corrected on motion. Nor does such a search warrant become void because of an improper return, or error therein, but it may be amended to conform to the facts. 39 So.2d at 884. The holding in Wince was followed in Cole v. State, 237 So.2d 443 (Miss. 1970) and Ward v. State, 461 So.2d 724 (Miss. 1984). The officers conducting the searches, Detectives Thomas and Sollie, testified under oath concerning the affidavits and underlying circumstances of the issuance of the warrants. The search warrant of October, 1985, was issued based upon an affidavit and the testimony of Officer Thomas. His information was obtained by interviewing the victim, G.C. The second search warrant was supported by Officer Thomas' affidavit and the statement of a second victim, M.B. The third warrant, which permitted the taking of blood and hair samples, was issued based upon Thomas' testimony as to what he observed in the second search. We find that the evidence admitted at trial was not unconstitutionally obtained, there was ample probable cause to issue each of the three warrants, and no error was committed by the trial court.