Opinion ID: 701110
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Telephonic Correction of the Room Number

Text: 4 Even if state officials seized evidence under a warrant obtained in violation of Montana procedure, the evidence was not inadmissible in federal court because it was not obtained in violation of federal constitutional standards. See United States v. Piver, 899 F.2d 881, 882-83 (9th Cir. 1990). 5 Assuming the failure to administer an oath to the officer seeking the telephonic warrant violated the Fourth Amendment, the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule is applicable. See United States v. Kurt, 986 F.2d 309, 311 (9th Cir. 1993). Failure to record the telephonic request did not defeat the Fourth Amendment interest in preserving a record for judicial scrutiny of the warrant. See United States v. Johnson, 641 F.2d 652, 656, 658 (9th Cir. 1981). The record in this case is clearly adequate for judicial review -- the initial warrant was based on an officer's written affidavit, and the basis for correcting the address is clear in the record. Even if failure to record were a Fourth Amendment violation, the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule would apply. As in Kurt, the absence of the recording was due entirely to the judge's error, and the judge told the officer he was authorized to conduct the search. 6 The constitution does not require a special justification for seeking a telephonic, rather than a written, warrant. A suppression motion based on the ground that circumstances did not justify dispensing with a written affidavit in favor of a telephonic warrant is expressly precluded absent a finding of bad faith. See Fed. Rule Crim. Pro. 41(c)(2)(G). We have relied on this provision without noting any constitutional concerns. See, e.g., Johnson, 641 F.2d at 658 n.4.