State v. Sosa
2011 UT 12
Utah2011Background
- Judge issued a warrant for Sosa's residence on August 11, 2008; Sandy City Police executed the search on August 14, 2008 and arrested Sosa based on evidence found.
- Magistrate allegedly told the officer to return the original warrant materials to the clerk as part of filing the documents.
- Rule 40(i)(1) requires the magistrate to retain and seal a copy of the warrant and related materials at issuance and file sealed documents in court files later.
- Sosa moved to suppress arguing the magistrate violated Rule 40(i)(1) by not retaining and sealing the documents, creating potential mishandling risk.
- District court held the officer acted as the magistrate's agent and thus compliance with Rule 40(i)(1) was satisfied; Sosa appealed.
- This Court held the officer-contention cannot be sustained and applied harmless-error analysis, ultimately upholding the district court’s ruling that suppression was not required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did magistrate's failure to retain/seal warrant materials require suppression? | Sosa argues Rule 40(i)(1) violation mandates suppression. | State contends officer acted as magistrate's agent; no suppression required. | No suppression; Rule 40(i)(1) error deemed harmless. |
| Should the error be disregarded under Rule 30 given substantial rights? | Sosa maintains the error affected substantial rights. | State relies on Dominguez to label the error harmless. | Error disregarded; suppression not required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Taylor, 149 P.3d 352 (UT 2006) (concerns about law enforcement retaining warrants and avoiding absence of court record)
- State v. Dominguez, 248 P.3d 473 (UT 2011) (harmless-error analysis under Rule 30 when no substantial rights infringed)
- Ostler v. Buhler, 989 P.2d 1073 (UT 1999) (analysis guiding Rule 40 interpretation)