Court Opinion

ID: 9884046
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 02:32:35.688732+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:34.647533
License: Public Domain

RANDALL, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. I would have affirmed the trial court’s suppression of the evidence obtained in the search.
A trial court’s review of a search warrant at the Rasmussen portion of an Omnibus hearing is the first time the search warrant is scrutinized by a neutral judge at a full adversarial hearing complete with a transcribed record, oral and/or documentary evidence. At the hearing, for the first time, witnesses for the state are subject to cross-examination, and the defense is free to put on its own case and call witnesses if it chooses.
Here, the trial court reviewed the supporting affidavits originally presented to the issuing judge, but, in addition to what the issuing judge saw, the trial judge heard extensive oral testimony under oath. The trial court in a well reasoned and lengthy memorandum took the substantive paragraphs of the affidavits and then compared them line-by-line to the actual evidence offered by the prosecution in the Rasmussen hearing. At the Rasmussen hearing, both sides offered oral testimony, and thus great deference is owed the trial court in reaching factual conclusions based on disputed testimony.
I cannot find that the trial court was clearly erroneous in its application of the law measured against the factual conclusions it drew. I would have affirmed the trial court.