Court Opinion

ID: 9792482
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:29:55.862606+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:43.185690
License: Public Domain

HARTZ, Judge, specially concurring. I join in the opinion of the court. I write separately, however, because this case illustrates so well how a little extra training and effort could greatly improve affidavits for search warrants in this state. A search of a residence is a profound intrusion on privacy. The procedures for obtaining authorization for such intrusions deserve more attention than they seem to be getting. Moreover, time and energy expended on improving affidavits will be amply compensated by reducing the time and energy expended in litigation concerning the sufficiency of affidavits. If our common-sense interpretation of the affidavit in this case is correct, then it would not have been open to serious challenge if it had stated explicitly what we have inferred. Checklists could help eliminate imprecision and other defects in affidavits. Perhaps the District Attorneys Association, the Attorney General, or the Law Enforcement Academy could provide each law enforcement agency with a checklist with which to prepare and review all affidavits for warrants. In addition, assistant district attorneys should be available, and should be contacted by law enforcement officers, whenever an application for a warrant is contemplated. A half-hour of attorney’s time in the preparation of an affidavit can save hours of litigation time later. Also, the day should be long gone when magistrates either rubber stamp search warrants or review affidavits on a take-it- or-leave-it basis. Magistrates, who should have their own checklists (perhaps provided by the Administrative Office of the Courts), should consider questioning officers submitting affidavits, with necessary clarifications being .inserted, under oath, in the affidavits. Finally, affiants should specifically identify the source of every item of information. If every time the affiant said, “The affiant has received information,” the affiant instead had to say, “Informant A provided information to affiant,” many problems would disappear, or at least would become apparent soon enough to avert future difficulty.