Court Opinion

ID: 9468826
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 02:24:39.413862+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:41:04.444034
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING
On motion for rehearing, we have discovered that part of our original decision is in error. A review of the record indicates that, although the defendants’ objection to the introduction of Officer Prindle’s testimony concerning his unrecorded oral statements to Judge Hall was initially sustained, the magistrate subsequently reversed himself on this issue and admitted the hearsay testimony into evidence.
Generally, in federal proceedings, any additional testimony concerning the existence of probable cause must be “taken down by a court reporter or recording equipment and made a part of the affidavit.” Fed.R. Cr.P. 41(c). However, this requirement, when applied to state warrant proceedings, is not one of constitutional dimension. United States v. Chafin, 622 F.2d 927, 929-30 (6th Cir. 1980); Tabasko v. Barton, 472 F.2d 871, 873 (6th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 412 U.S. 908, 93 S.Ct. 2288, 36 L.Ed.2d 974 (1973). In such circumstances, the relevant inquiry is whether state law would permit this additional information to be considered. United States v. Chafin, 622 F.2d at 930. Kentucky law is clear that the existence of probable cause must be determined only from the four corners of the affidavit. See Robinson v. Commonwealth, Ky., 550 S.W.2d 496, 497, cert. denied, 434 U.S. 923, 98 S.Ct. 401, 54 L.Ed.2d 281 (1977). Thus, the magistrate erred in considering the additional information contained in Officer Prindle’s testimony at the suppression hearing.
However, this error does not require a new trial for it is clear that the affidavit itself contained sufficient information to establish the existence of probable cause. Our review of the record reveals, and the magistrate acknowledged, that Officer Prindle’s testimony was only a recapitulation of the facts recited in his affidavit. Any error resulting from the admission of Officer Prindle’s testimony was harmless.
Finding no other error, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.