893 N.W.2d 904
Iowa2017Background
- In March–May 2015 Deputy Dan Furlong used a confidential informant and GPS tracking to link Maurice Angel’s Tahoe to a residence at 1916 E. 38th St., Davenport, and observed suspected short-stop drug transactions.
- On May 8, 2015 Furlong presented a written application for a search warrant to Judge Henry Latham in a courthouse hallway; Judge Latham administered an oral oath to Furlong, reviewed and signed the warrant and related endorsement, but Furlong inadvertently did not sign the application jurat.
- The warrant was executed May 12, 2015; police found cocaine, marijuana, drug paraphernalia, and cash; Angel and Kemia McDowell were charged with multiple drug offenses (McDowell also charged with child endangerment).
- At suppression hearing defendants moved to suppress on two statutory grounds: (1) the application was not "supported by the person’s oath or affirmation" because Furlong did not sign the jurat; (2) the magistrate did not indicate an explicit finding of probable cause on the endorsement form (unchecked boxes).
- The district court granted suppression, concluding Iowa law required the applicant’s written signature supporting the oath on the application and, separately, that the endorsement’s unchecked boxes undermined a proper finding of probable cause.
- The Iowa Supreme Court granted discretionary review and reversed the district court: it held the application was supported by Furlong’s oath (proved by the judge’s jurat and by testimony) and the judge’s signatures established a finding of probable cause despite the unchecked boxes; the court remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Angel/McDowell) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Iowa Code § 808.3 requires the applicant’s oath/affirmation to be in writing (signed on the application) | §808.3 requires a written application supported by the person’s oath or affirmation but does not mandate that the oath itself be in writing or signed on the form; extrinsic testimony may prove the oath was given | The application was not "supported by the person’s oath or affirmation" because Furlong failed to sign the jurat, so the warrant was invalid | Majority: Warrant complied with §808.3 — the oral oath administered in the magistrate’s presence (corroborated by the judge’s jurat/signatures and Furlong’s testimony) satisfied the statute; suppression reversed |
| Whether the magistrate’s failure to mark the endorsement boxes (finding probable cause/not) invalidates the warrant | The magistrate’s signature on the warrant, jurat, and endorsement demonstrates that the judge found probable cause; leaving boxes unchecked was a scrivener error that does not void the warrant | The unchecked boxes show no contemporaneous, explicit judicial finding of probable cause as §808.3/.4 require; the warrant is therefore invalid | Majority: The judge’s signatures are the essential acts under §808.4; unchecked boxes were a technical oversight and do not invalidate the warrant |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Liesche, 228 N.W.2d 44 (Iowa 1975) (probable cause must appear in affidavits or magistrate’s abstracts; courts generally cannot rely on extrinsic factual evidence at suppression)
- State v. Harris, 436 N.W.2d 364 (Iowa 1989) (magistrate’s notation that an informant swore may allow inference that the informant’s statements were sworn; supplemental testimony that only corroborates the record may be admissible)
- State v. Beckett, 532 N.W.2d 751 (Iowa 1995) (magistrate must state reasons for finding an informant credible; failure to do so can invalidate a warrant)
- State v. Davis, 679 N.W.2d 651 (Iowa 2004) (interpretation of another state’s oath/signature rule; court considered applicability of good-faith doctrines when statutes differ)
- State v. Sykes, 412 N.W.2d 578 (Iowa 1987) (preference for upholding warrants; resolve doubtful cases in favor of validity)