Opinion ID: 2613356
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The State Constitution: Municipal Court Authority To Issue Administrative Search Warrants Based on Probable Cause [6]

Text: In McCready I, a number of Seattle landowners argued the inspection warrants issued by the Superior Court pursuant to the Residential Housing Inspection Program violated Const. art. 1, § 7 because they were issued by a magistrate who lacked the authority to issue such warrants. We agreed, and quashed the warrants. The rationale underlying our disposition of McCready I is that municipal courts have no inherent authority to issue administrative inspection warrants, and that no statutory or rule-based authority exists to issue warrants on less than probable cause. McCready I, at 272-76. Unlike the warrants challenged in McCready I, however, the warrant here was issued on the basis of probable cause to believe building code violations existed in the building to be inspected. We are now asked to decide the question McCready I did not explicitly reach, whether a municipal court may issue an administrative search warrant supported by probable cause. [8] Because municipal courts have no inherent authority to issue administrative search warrants, they must rely on an authorizing statute or court rule. McCready I. Of the statutes and court rules cited by the City, none authorizes the issuance of administrative inspection warrants supported by probable cause to believe a civil infraction, rather than a crime, has occurred. For example, one potentially relevant source of authority for issuing search warrants is RCW 10.79.015, which states: Any such magistrate, when satisfied that there is reasonable cause, may ... upon ... complaint made on oath, issue search warrant in the following cases, to wit: (1) To search for and seize any counterfeit or spurious coin, or forged instruments, or tools, machines or materials, prepared or provided for making either of them. (2) To search for and seize any gaming apparatus used or kept, and to be used in any unlawful gaming house, or in any building, apartment or place, resorted to for the purpose of unlawful gaming. (3) To search for and seize any evidence material to the investigation or prosecution of any homicide or felony.... (4) To search for and seize any instrument, apparatus or device used to obtain telephone or telegraph service in violation of RCW 9.45.240. None of the above provisions apply to the facts of this case. By court rule, this court has expanded RCW 10.79.015 to provide for the issuance of warrants to search for evidence of any crime. See CrR 2.3(b)(1) (governing superior courts); CrRLJ 2.3(b)(1) (governing courts of limited jurisdiction). Neither rule, however, authorizes the issuance of a warrant based on evidence of civil infractions. CrR 2.3(b) and CrRLJ 2.3(b) provide: Property or Persons Which May Be Seized With a Warrant. A warrant may be issued under this rule to search for and seize any (1) evidence of a crime; or (2) contraband, the fruits of crime, or things otherwise criminally possessed; or (3) weapons or other things by means of which a crime has been committed or reasonably appears about to be committed; or (4) person for whose arrest there is probable cause, or who is unlawfully restrained. Under these rules, the municipal court has authority to issue administrative search warrants supported by probable cause only if the application for the inspection warrant alleges a housing code violation which constitutes a crime rather than a civil infraction. In this case, although the warrant application alleged violations of the housing code in general, there was no specific allegation those violations constituted a crime. [7] See Application for Warrant; Clerk's Papers, at 350. Consequently, the warrant issued by the Municipal Court was without authority of law and must be quashed under McCready I.