Court Opinion

ID: 9689315
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:27:23.375973+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:46.929174
License: Public Domain

*214LeGRAND, Justice
(concurring specially).
I agree with the result reached by the majority but disagree with Division I of the opinion. I therefore concur only in the result.
In State v. Boyd, 224 N.W.2d 609 (Iowa 1974), this court adopted a rule for testing the validity of search warrants issued on the strength of sworn testimony by law officers. We there held that any false statement would invalidate the warrant if made intentionally or with reckless disregard of the truth and that a material false statement would likewise invalidate the warrant regardless of good faith.
Now the majority abandons Boyd in favor of Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 2676, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978), which makes deliberate misrepresentation a prerequisite for invalidating such a warrant.
In adopting Franks, the majority says the purpose of search warrant rules is to prevent official misconduct; but this is only one of the purposes. It is not even the prime purpose.
The principal purpose of our search warrant rules is not to deter official misconduct, but to insure that warrants issue only on a showing of probable cause. The majority opinion permits the issuance of search warrants on material facts demonstrably false if innocently made. I doubt this will make the wrongful invasion of a suspect’s rights more palatable. If the material facts upon which the warrant issued are false, the warrant was improvidently granted and should be quashed. Under those circumstances, we should never reach the question of official misconduct. This was the basis upon which Boyd was decided. I think we should adhere to our own rule. We may do this because Boyd, in applying Iowa constitutional standards, enlarges, rather than diminishes, the protection afforded by Franks.
McCORMICK, J., concurs in this special concurrence.