State v. Sosa, 2011 UT 12

On August 11, 2008, a magistrate issued a warrant to search Mauricio Sosa's residence.
Sandy City Police searched the residence on August 14, 2008 and arrested Sosa based on evidence from the search.
Sosa argues the warrant was flawed because the magistrate’s copies were returned to the officer to file with the clerk, contrary to Rule 40(i)(1).
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 within a reasonable time.
The district court held the officer acted as the magistrate’s agent and thus Rule 40(i)(1) was satisfied.
On appeal, Sosa does not challenge the warrant’s validity nor allege his substantial rights were affected; he argues the magistrate’s error requires suppression of seized evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Rule 40(i)(1) violation by returning the warrant materials to the officer?	Sosa	Sosa contends the magistrate failed retention and filing; officer mishandled documents.	No suppression; error deemed harmless.
Did the officer acting as agent satisfy Rule 40(i)(1) retention requirements?	Sosa	District court allowed officer-as-agent to fulfill rule.	Court rejects officer-as-agent rationale; relies on Dominguez for harmless error.
Does the magistrate’s error affect substantial rights under Rule 30?	Sosa	No substantial rights were infringed.	Yes, error is harmless under Rule 30.
Should the evidence be suppressed despite no substantial rights infringement?	Sosa	Suppression unnecessary if no substantial rights were affected.	Evidence not suppressed.

Ostler v. Buhler, 989 P.2d 1073 (1999 UT 99) (context for reviewing Rule 40 and preservation concerns)
Anderson v. Taylor, 149 P.3d 352 (2006 UT 79) (concerns about law enforcement retaining warrants and materials)
State v. Dominguez, 248 P.3d 473 (2011 UT 11) (harmless error when no substantial rights infringed)