Court Opinion

ID: 9648984
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 14:39:58.567132+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:06.835173
License: Public Domain

NEIKIRK, Judge
(dissenting).
In my opinion my colleagues should not have dodged the issue of determining the constitutionality of KRS 218.245. The Legislature enacted this statute to aid law enforcement officers to accomplish exactly the results obtained in this case.
I would hold the affidavit and search warrant in this case sufficient under KRS 218.245. To me, the basic requirements as set forth in United States v. Harris, 403 U.S. 573, 91 S.Ct. 2075, 29 L.Ed.2d 723, were met. The affidavit for the search warrant provided ample and sufficient basis for the issuing magistrate to determine that probable cause for the search of the automobile did exist. Surely it is not required that magistrates and those issuing search warrants be as legalistically technical in all respects as the majority of the court would require.
I would affirm the conviction obtained in this case.