Opinion ID: 2972575
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Trial Commissioner’s Neutrality

Text: In his reply brief, Durham also implies that Commissioner Shuler was not a neutral magistrate. Durham cites Commonwealth v. Brandenburg, 114 S.W.3d 830 (2003). In that case, the Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed an appeals court decision reversing the trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress. Commissioner Shuler had issued a search warrant for the defendant’s Lee County residence that led to the seizure of drug paraphernalia. In affirming the appeals court, the Kentucky Supreme Court noted that Shuler’s husband worked for the Lee County Commonwealth Attorney’s office as a Victim Advocate. Id. at 831. In light of her husband’s position, the Brandenburg court found Shuler was not a neutral magistrate for purposes of the Fourth -9- No. 04-5666 United States v. Durham Amendment. In the present case, Shuler signed the search warrant for the Irvine police department, located in Estill County. There is nothing in the record that leads us to question Shuler’s impartiality in dealing with officers in Estill County.