Opinion ID: 1196239
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: second search warrant

Text: In a motion for discovery the State requested access to the trailer so that its out-of-state expert witness could examine it. In response, defense counsel stated, Well, I think that that needs to be dealt with as a search warrant. I'm not consenting. The court and counsel then discussed whether the district court had authority to grant permission to the State to enter without a search warrant. Neither party produced any pertinent authority on the question, and the matter was left with the understanding that if there's a legal basis for [the district court] to issue an order without a warrant or remove a warrant, [the State will] approach it that way, let [defense counsel] know it's coming, and if not, [the State will] do a search warrant. Ultimately, the State did seek and was issued a search warrant from the county court. Ryan moved to suppress any evidence obtained from the search, and that motion was denied. Ryan contends that the county court was without jurisdiction to issue the search warrant, as the case had been transferred to the district court pursuant to W.R.Cr.P. 5.1 [8] Additionally, Ryan asserts that once a case has been transferred to the district court, that court has exclusive jurisdiction to manage discovery, pursuant to W.R.Cr.P. 16. The State responds that Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-7-101, [9] which authorizes county court judges to issue warrants, is controlling. The authority of the county court to issue a search warrant is statutory and cannot be abrogated or altered by court rule. Pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 5-2-114 (LEXIS 1999): The supreme court of Wyoming may from time to time adopt, modify and repeal general rules and forms governing pleading, practice and procedure, in all courts of this state, for the purpose of promoting the speedy and efficient determination of litigation upon its merits. However, (b) Such rules shall neither abridge, enlarge nor modify the substantive rights of any person nor the jurisdiction of any of the courts nor change the provisions of any statute of limitations. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 5-2-115(b) (LEXIS 1999). Therefore, county courts cannot be divested of their authority to issue a search warrant by W.R.Cr.P. 5.1. Ryan correctly notes that the district court has exclusive jurisdiction to control discovery. Pursuant to that authority, the court may at any time order that the discovery or inspection be denied, restricted, or deferred, or make such other order as is appropriate. W.R.Cr.P. 16(d)(1). Therefore, while the district court has no power to prevent the issuance of a warrant from the county court, it does have the authority to prevent the litigants before it from seeking a search warrant, or, pursuant to W.R.Cr.P. 16(d)(2), from using evidence obtained thereby at trial. In the absence of such an order directing discovery, however, litigants are free to pursue any authorized avenue of discovery available to them. There has been no contention that the warrant was not supported by probable cause, that Ryan's right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures has been violated, or that the district court abused its discretion in admitting the evidence. Therefore, we find that admission of the evidence obtained by the second search warrant was proper.