Summary
nonconforming copy of warrant provided to defendant is ministerial
Summary of this case from State v. TempleOpinion
No. 3782-7-III.
February 17, 1981.
[1] Searches and Seizures — Warrant — Validity — Ministerial Acts. Failure of the police executing a search warrant to comply with all procedural requirements does not invalidate the warrant or require the suppression of evidence obtained from its execution unless a defendant demonstrates prejudice resulting from such noncompliance.
Nature of Action: Following execution of a search warrant, the defendants were charged with keeping controlled substances in their residence.
Superior Court: The Superior Court for Grant County, No. 4563, B.J. McLean, J., on December 21, 1979, suppressed the evidence seized under the warrant. Court of Appeals: Holding that the defendants had not shown prejudice from being served with a nonconformed copy of the warrant, the court reverses the order and remands for trial.
Paul A. Klasen, Jr., Prosecuting Attorney, and Guy Nelson, Deputy, for appellant.
Patrick R. Acres, Richard C. Fitterer, and Milne, Lemargie Fitterer, for respondents.
The State appeals an order granting defendants Parker's and White's motion to suppress evidence.
The pertinent facts may be summarized as follows:
After a finding of probable cause, a warrant was duly issued for a search of Parker's and White's residence. The original was dated and signed by the magistrate. At the time of the search, a nonconformed copy was given to the defendants; it was neither signed in the space provided for the issuing magistrate's signature, nor dated. It did contain the name of the affiant who provided the information for probable cause, and properly designated the place to be searched and described the property to be seized. The record does not show a demand was made for a showing of a conformed copy of the warrant.
Police officers seized marijuana plants found at the defendants' residence. Defendants' motion to suppress the evidence on the sole ground that the copy of the warrant handed to them lacked the issuing magistrate's signature and date was granted.
Assuming arguendo the instant copy should have been signed and dated, the dispositive question is whether such a violation of CrR 2.3(d) and JCrR 2.10(d) renders the search invalid. We hold it does not.
It is unclear whether the warrant was issued pursuant to the Justice Court Criminal Rules or the Superior Court Criminal Rules.
[1] The rules for the execution and return of a valid search warrant are ministerial in nature. State v. Smith, 15 Wn. App. 716, 552 P.2d 1059 (1976); United States v. McKenzie, 446 F.2d 949 (6th Cir. 1971); State v. Montagna, 35 Conn. Sup. 225, 405 A.2d 93 (1979); Braden v. State, 135 Ga. App. 827, 219 S.E.2d 479 (1975); People v. Harrison, 83 Ill. App.2d 90, 226 N.E.2d 418 (1967). Absent a showing of prejudice to the defendant, procedural noncompliance does not compel invalidation of the warrant or suppression of its fruits. State v. Wraspir, 20 Wn. App. 626, 581 P.2d 182 (1978); State v. Smith, supra; State v. Bowman, 8 Wn. App. 148, 504 P.2d 1148 (1972); United States v. Cooper, 421 F. Supp. 804 (W.D. Tenn. 1976). Defendants Parker and White made no showing of prejudice; therefore, the order suppressing the evidence is reversed and the case remanded for trial.
McINTURFF, C.J., and GREEN, J., concur.