30.06.2014 Views

SAN DIEGO DISTRICT ATTORNEY The Fourth Amendment and ...

SAN DIEGO DISTRICT ATTORNEY The Fourth Amendment and ...

SAN DIEGO DISTRICT ATTORNEY The Fourth Amendment and ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Court noted that the issue was whether the second search was<br />

really no more than a continuation of the first. <strong>The</strong> Court decided<br />

that it was, citing the fact that the files seized on the second trip<br />

were listed in the warrant.<br />

Leaving a Copy of the Warrant, Affidavit <strong>and</strong>/or Receipt <strong>and</strong> Inventory:<br />

<strong>The</strong>re is no state statutory nor constitutional rule requiring that searching<br />

officers show the suspects the warrant, the affidavit to the warrant, or a<br />

copy of either, or that a copy of either be left at the scene after the search.<br />

(People v. Calabrese (2002) 101 Cal.App.4 th 79.)<br />

Only a copy of the “receipt <strong>and</strong> inventory” (or “return”) must be<br />

left with the occupants or at the scene. (P.C. § 1535)<br />

Note: Fed. Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 41(d), applying<br />

only to the execution of a federal search warrant, requires that the<br />

occupant be given a copy of the warrant <strong>and</strong> a receipt for property<br />

taken in the search, or that these documents be left at the scene.<br />

<strong>The</strong> Ninth Circuit’s Opinion: <strong>The</strong> Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal is<br />

of the belief that failure to provide to an occupant a copy of a<br />

warrant, properly describing the place to be searched <strong>and</strong> the<br />

property to be seized, may be a <strong>Fourth</strong> <strong>Amendment</strong> violation<br />

(See Ramirez v. Butte Silver Bow County (9 th Cir. 2002) 298 F.3 rd<br />

1022.), thus creating some potential federal civil liability for state<br />

officers who choose to follow the state rule.<br />

However, the Ninth Circuit has also noted that only a<br />

“fundamental” violation of Rule 41(d) will m<strong>and</strong>ate<br />

suppression of evidence. Where the agent was not aware of<br />

this rule, <strong>and</strong> otherwise insured that defendant was aware of<br />

why they were in his home <strong>and</strong> what they were looking for,<br />

suppression of evidence was not a proper remedy. (United<br />

States v. Williamson (9 th Cir. 2006) 439 F.3 rd 1125;<br />

discussing the difference between “intentionally,” but not<br />

“deliberately,” failing to provide defendant with a copy of<br />

the warrant prior to searching his house.)<br />

Note: <strong>The</strong>refore, despite not being required by state law, it<br />

is probably good practice for a state law enforcement<br />

officer to show the occupants a copy of the search warrant<br />

(but not the affidavit), or, if no one is home, leave a copy of<br />

the search warrant at the scene. <strong>The</strong>re is no harm in doing<br />

this, <strong>and</strong> brings the state execution of a search warrant in<br />

compliance with the federal rules.<br />

© 2012 Robert C. Phillips. All rights reserved<br />

393

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!