Court Opinion

ID: 9549678
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:23:10.038474+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:20:44.134111
License: Public Domain

BURKE, Justice,
dissenting in part.
To the extent that the majority opinion requires the filing of a “written statement indicating probable cause ... as justification for issuance of the warrant” in future cases, I dissent. To impose such a requirement is to amend the statute, and unless it can be said that a written statement of probable cause is a requirement of due process of law, which the majority concedes it is not, I fail to discern any legitimate basis for such action by this court. Simply because the statute is silent on whether the constitutional requirement of probable cause is to be shown by one method as opposed to the other, hardly leads to the conclusion that this court is empowered to require the use of either one of them. Despite the existence of what we may believe to be needed improvements in the law, our authority is not without its limitations.