Court Opinion

ID: 9605539
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:38:32.077785+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:17:41.620202
License: Public Domain

McFADDEN, Justice
(dissenting).
The majority opinion first recognizes that rules of criminal procedure adopted by this court cannot properly contradict constitutional provisions, and then holds in effect that the constitutional provision, Art. 1, § 17,1 which requires
“ * * * and no warrant shall issue without probable cause shown by affidavit, particularly describing the place to be searched and the person or thing to be seized”
should be construed to mean that an electronic recording of sworn testimony fulfills this requirement. In the majority opinion it is stated, “We hold that the word ‘affidavit’ is broad enough to include the recording of sworn testimony. We find no express requirement of a ‘written’ affidavit and our holding does no violence to the purpose or spirit of our constitution but merely recognizes modern advances in technology.” It is with this conclusion that I disagree.
The word “affidavit” is defined by Webster’s Third International Dictionary (1967) as follows: “a sworn statement in writing made esp. under oath or on affirmation before an authorized magistrate or officer.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Revised *173Fourth Edition (1968), defines the term as follows:
“A written or printed declaration or statement of facts, made voluntarily, and confirmed by the oath or affirmation of the party making it, taken before an officer having authority to administer such oath. Cox v. Stern, 170 Ill. 442, 48 N.E. 906, 62 Am. St. Rep. 385; Hays v. Loomis, 84 Ill. 18. A statement or declaration reduced to writing, and sworn to or affirmed before some officer who has authority to administer an oath or affirmation. Shelton v. Berry, 19 Tex. 154, 70 Am.Dec. 326, and in re Breidt, 84 N.J.Eq. 222, 94 A. 214, 216.”
There are a wealth of other cases to the same effect which hold that the term “affidavit” has reference to a written statement under oath, a few of which are In re Hoyt’s Estate, 246 Iowa 292, 67 N.W.2d 528, 532 (1954); Fitzsimmons v. Board of Education of Borough of Carteret, 125 N.J.L. 15, 13 A.2d 305, 306 (1940); City Comm’n of City of Gallipolis v. State, 36 Ohio App. 258, 173 N.E. 36, 38 (1930); and Torkelson v. Byrne, 68 N.D. 13, 276 N.W. 134, 137 (1937). See also, 2A Words and Phrases, Affidavit Perm. Ed., p. 326.
The Constitutional provision involved in this case is clear and explicit and requires no “construction.” When it says that “no warrant shall issue without probable cause shown, by affidavit,” it means simply that. The word, affidavit, means a written statement of facts voluntarily made and confirmed by the oath or affirmation of the party making it, taken before an officer having authority to administer such oath. The constitutional provision does not leave in doubt any other meaning. See, Powelson v. Superior Court, 9 Cal.App. 3d 357, 88 Cal.Rptr. 8 (1970).
In my opinion I.C.R. 41(c) insofar as it authorizes issuance of a search warrant on testimony under oath and recorded electronically is in violation of the constitutional provision discussed, and that the trial court erred in not granting the appellant’s motion to quash. The judgment of conviction should be reversed.

. It is of interest to note that as originally enacted by the Constitutional Convention, Art. 1, § 17, was punctuated somewhat at variance with what now appears in 1 Idaho Code, p. 69. Section 17, as quoted by the majority opinion, reads as is published in the Idaho Code. As originally enacted the last portion of that section was punctuated as set out in this opinion. See II Idaho Const. Conv. Proceedings and Debates, p. 2051 (1889).