Opinion ID: 2972575
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Authority To Issue Search Warrant

Text: Kentucky Supreme Court Rule 5.010 empowers the chief judge of a Kentucky judicial district to appoint a trial commissioner to serve as a judicial officer in a county that does not have a regular district judge. The appointment of a trial commissioner is subject to the approval of the Chief Justice of the Kentucky Supreme Court. Ky. SCR 5.010. A trial commissioner has various powers in criminal, civil, juvenile, and probate matters. Among these are the power to issue arrest and search warrants. Id. 5.030. A trial commissioner’s authority generally applies only within his county of appointment. Id. Rule 5.040 provides an exception: “A trial commissioner may be temporarily assigned by the chief judge of the district to serve in any county within the district and shall, while so serving, have the same authority as in the county of his residence.” The Government says Commissioner Shuler’s temporary appointment was proper under Rule 5.040. The Defendant argues that the Kentucky Supreme Court invalidated Rule 5.040 in Commonwealth v. Shelton, 766 S.W.2d 628 (Ky. 1989). In Shelton, the court affirmed the reversal of the defendant’s conviction for cocaine possession. The trial court had denied the defendant’s motion to suppress, ruling in part that the Fulton County trial commissioner had properly issued a warrant for a search to be conducted in Hickman County. Id. at 629. The appeals court reversed and the Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed. The Kentucky Supreme Court noted that although a trial commissioner’s authority generally -5- No. 04-5666 United States v. Durham applies only within the county in which he resides, the court’s rules permitted temporary assignments elsewhere within a judicial district. Id. (citing Ky. SCR 5.040). Still, the court found nothing in the record before this Court indicating that [the Fulton County trial commissioner] had been authorized to serve in Hickman County. In any event he has no authority while serving in Fulton County to exercise authority beyond the limits of that county, and under our rules, he could not be given such authority. Therefore, he was without jurisdiction to issue a search warrant in or for Hickman County. Id. The Defendant reads the cited passage from Shelton as overruling Kentucky Supreme Court Rule 5.04. The Defendant focuses on the statement that “[i]n any event, he has no authority while serving in Fulton County to exercise authority beyond the limits of that county, and under our rules, he could not be given such authority.” Id. (emphasis added). The Defendant’s interpretation extends Shelton too far. Unlike the present case, Shelton involved a trial commissioner who had not received a temporary appointment extending his authority outside his home county. Moreover, the Kentucky Supreme Court cited Rule 5.04 in reaching its decision, noting that a trial commissioner “may be ‘temporarily assigned by the chief judge of the district to serve’ elsewhere ‘within the district’” under that rule. Id. (quoting Ky. SCR 5.040). Taken in context, the court’s ruling does not negate Rule 5.04 or impose any additional limitations on the temporary assignment of trial commissioners. The Defendant cites Vessels v. Brown-Forman Distillers Corp., 793 S.W.2d 795 (Ky. 1990), to demonstrate the Kentucky Supreme Court’s willingness to invalidate rules of court. Vessels does not help the Defendant. There, the court found civil rule 76.25 unconstitutional. In doing so, the -6- No. 04-5666 United States v. Durham court used clear language: “CR 76.25 is unconstitutional.” Id. at 798. In Shelton, the court offered no such explicit language that it intended to overrule Rule 5.04. Further, Rule 5.04 remains on the books today despite Shelton’s holding. If accepted, the Defendant’s position would greatly undermine judicial efficiency. If Kentucky’s district judges could no longer appoint trial commissioners to temporarily serve in their stead, judicial activity would grind to a halt whenever a judge leaves the district for an extended period. Police officers would find it difficult to obtain arrest and search warrants; complainants might not obtain emergency protective orders in domestic violence cases; it would be harder for child welfare officials to obtain orders for temporary custody of endangered children. See Ky. SCR 5.030 (listing trial commissioners’ powers). For these reasons, we affirm the district court’s denial of Durham’s motion to suppress for lack of jurisdiction to issue the search warrant.