Court Opinion

ID: 9654768
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 18:50:23.659503+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:13.290508
License: Public Domain

John A. Fogleman, Justice, concurring. I concur in the result reached by the majority but do not agree upon the basis on which that result should be reached. In my opinion the affidavit states a reasonable ground for belief that clothing and shoes in Ferguson’s apartment would contain telltale particles of the asbestos filling from the “peeled” safe. It appears to me, however, that the search warrant was fatally defective in that there is no authority for the issuance of such a search warrant, however desirable it might be that magistrates be vested with that authority. According to the testimony of the municipal judge who issued the search warrant, the affidavit reproduced in the majority opinion was the sole basis for its issuance. This affidavit nowhere mentions any belief that there were burglar tools or other contraband in the place to be searched or that there were any other articles for which a search warrant might be issued either under statutory or common law authority. I agree with the appellants that there must be such authority before any judicial officer has the power to issue a search warrant. Gouled v. U. S., 255 U. S. 298, 41 S. Ct. 261, 65 L. Ed. 647 (1921); White v. Wagar, 185 Ill. 195, 57 N. E. 26 (1900); Sugarman v. State, 173 Md. 52, 195 A. 324 (1937). See also, 79 C. J. S. 827, Searches and Seizures, § 64; 47 Am. Jur. 511, Searches and Seizures, § 14; 1 Varon, Searches, Seizures and Immunities 371; 4 Wharton’s Criminal Law and Procedure, Anderson 173 § 1548. It is clear that there is common law authority for the issuance of a search warrant for burglary tools, stolen or forfeited property, any property which it is unlawful to possess, weapons or instrumentalities of crime and other articles of such nature and character. See Boyd v. U. S., 116 U. S. 616, 6 S. Ct. 524, 29 L. Ed. 746 (1886); Weeks v. U. S., 232 U. S. 383, 34 S. Ct. 341, 58 L. Ed. 652, L. R. A. 1915B 834, Ann. Cas. 1915C 1177 (1914). I do not think that the case of Warden v. Hayden, 387 U. S. 294, 87 S. Ct. 1642, 18 L. Ed. 2d 782 (1967), relied upon by the state, overruled Gouled in its holding that there is no common law authority for issuance of a warrant to search for “mere evidence.” In Warden, the search was made contemporaneously with a lawful arrest upon hot pursuit. The incriminating evidentiary material was found and seized by the officers in the course of a proper search of the premises for the person or persons to be arrested, for weapons and instru-mentalities or fruits of the crime. The only effect of Warden upon this situation, in my opinion, is the holding that there are no federal constitutional inhibitions against the seizure of mere evidence. There is no indication in that case that there is authority for the issuance of such a warrant, without common law or statutory authority. I have been unable to find any statute that authorizes the issuance of a warrant to search for Ferguson’s clothing and shoes. I do not believe that they can be considered instrumentalities of the crime. It is suggested that we found inherent authority for justices of the peace and municipal judges to issue search warrants for anything for which a search is constitutionally permissible in Albright v. Karston, 206 Ark. 307, 176 S. W. 2d 421. I do not agree with this argument. In the first place, the authority of the municipal judge to issue a properly authorized warrant was based upon the common law authority of justices of the peace to issue warrants. The power of justices of the peace to issue the warrants in that case was related to statutory authority for the issuance of warrants to search for gaming devices and authorizing the destruction of such devices. According to the majority opinion, the undisputed testimony showed that all of the articles seized were being actually used in carrying on gambling operations, and for no other purpose. The argument that authority is inherent and limited only by constitutional restrictions is hinged upon the following language in that opinion: * * * The operation of a “bookmaking” establishment constitutes a felony and, since justices of the peace have jurisdiction to cause persons accused of a felony to be arrested and brought before them for examining trial, it follows that they have power to issue a search warrant by which devices used in the commission of felonies may be seized, that they may be used as evidence, and that they may be destroyed, if they are such as have been outlawed by statute. I submit that, even if this language is not dictum, it is applicable only when power is vested in justices of the peace at common law or by statute to issue search warrants for instrumentalities used in the commission of felonies and nothing further. I agree with all other matters covered in the majority opinion except for certain language with reference to consideration of lack of success of the search as a significant factor in determination of the validity of the warrant and consideration of the failure of the officers to find incriminating dust on the clothing of the Fergu-sons before the affidavit was made. The validity of the warrant should be determined upon the basis of the evidence produced before the magistrate issuing it. Success of a search will not validate a warrant. Walton and Fuller v. State, 245 Ark. 84, 481 S. W. 2d 462. Failure should not be evidence of invalidity. This premise is recognized in United States v. Cunningham, 424 F. 2d 942 (D. C. Ct. App. 1970). The significance of the failure of the officer to disclose that he and others had failed to find evidence of incriminating dust on the persons and clothing of the Fergusons completely eludes me. I cannot see how the officer can be said to have been concealing anything. It might be different if the Fergusons had been apprehended upon the burglarized premises and there inspected. It must be remembered that they were not seen at the neighboring motel until IV2 hours after the burglary had been discovered. They would have had ample time to go to their residence, bathe and change clothes before they dared to try to rescue the El Camino, if they had been active participants in the safe peeling. I find no indication of any lack of good faith or withholding of information from the magistrate by the officers. I find the language of Mr. Justice Goldberg in United States v. Ventresca, 580 U. S. 102, 85 S. Ct. 741, 13 L. Ed. 2d 684 (1965), to be appropriate: * * * the Fourth Amendment’s commands, like all constitutional requirements, are practical and not abstract. If the teachings of the Court’s cases are to be followed and the constitutional policy served, affidavits for search warrants, such as the one involved here, must be tested and interpreted by magistrates and courts in a commonsense and realistic fashion. They are normally drafted by nonlawyers in the midst and haste of a criminal investigation. Technical requirements of elaborate specificity once exacted under common law pleadings have no proper place in this area. A grudging or negative attitude by reviewing courts toward warrants will tend to discourage police officers from submitting their evidence to a judicial officer before acting.