Opinion ID: 1690821
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Technical Errors in the Search Warrant

Text: Third, Wally argues that the search warrant itself was defective because there was no recordation of any sworn testimony by Clark to the judicial officer that issued the search warrant, and the address of the property was incorrectly listed as 40 instead of 440 Nick Springs Road. As an initial matter, Walley assumes that the issuing magistrate's written comment that the search warrant was based on an affidavit for search warrant and sworn testimony refers to a written affidavit and separate verbal testimony by Clark. During the suppression hearing, the issue of recordation of any verbal testimony in support of the search warrant was not raised or discussed. Clark only testified to presenting the supporting affidavit to the judge, who issued the search warrant. Walley next asserts that the incorrect address was enough to defeat the search warrant. A minor discrepancy in the physical description of property to be searched in a search warrant is not normally fatal. See Watson v. State, 291 Ark. 358, 724 S.W.2d 478 (1987). In this case there was little chance of searching the wrong property because while the beginning of the affidavit and the search warrant incorrectly identified the address as 40 Nick Springs Road, the affidavit also correctly identified the residence address as 440 Nick Springs Road. Second, agent Clark, who obtained the search warrant had previously been to the residence and would later, himself, conduct the search. Both this court and the court of appeals have held that a technical error in a search warrant is minimized when the affiant is also the searching officer. Brown v. State, 55 Ark.App. 107, 932 S.W.2d 777 (1996); Beshears v. State, 320 Ark. 573, 898 S.W.2d 49 (1995). Furthermore, highly technical attacks on search warrants are not favored because the success of such attacks could discourage law enforcement officers from utilizing search warrants. Watson v. State, supra . We, therefore, cannot say that the circuit court erred in denying Walley's motion to suppress based on a partially incorrect address listed in the search warrant.