*1 drivers license is rescinded on the 169.123, 2(b)(2)
that Minn.Stat. subd.
(1990), portion Implied and that Con- it, Advisory
sent based are a violation of right process
the constitutional to due applied as
law her. GARDEBRING, JJ.,
SIMONETT and
took no in the consideration or decision
of this case.
COYNE, (dissenting part, con-
curring in part).
For my dissenting reasons stated in opin-
ion in Friedman v. Commissioner Pub- Safety, lic herewith, filed I dissent from
Part I majority’s decision
case. I also dissent from II Part
majority’s I decision. concur in majori-
ty’s conclusion in Part III that the refusal
provision 169.121, of Minn.Stat. subd. la privilege does not violate against
compelled self-incrimination.
KEITH, (dissenting Chief Justice part,
concurring part).
I concur Justice COYNE’s dissent
to Part I and majority’s Part II of the
decision. concur with the majority’s con-
clusions in Part III. Minnesota, Appellant,
STATE of LINDSEY, Respondent.
Mose
No. C2-89-2280.
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
Aug.
Rehearing Sept. Denied *2 reversed, concluding appeals
The court of applicant that the failed to establish need requirement dispensing for the normal writing there- that the suppression drugs in the fore found required. Lindsey, search was (Minn.App.1990). reverse the decision of the court of We appeals judgment and reinstate the of con- viction. October, 1988, Deputy
In late Michael Hankee, experienced an narcotics officer Ramsey County Depart- with the Sheriff’s ment, received information from confi- two drug dealing dential informants about at a specific apartment unit in a St. Paul com- plex. Deputy Hankee surveilled that loca- days, tion for a few for two hours or so at time, during which he learned from the building management heavy that there was apartment, traffic into and out of the Lindsey making pay- had been rent away. ments while the lessee was Hankee Lindsey also learned that had been arrest- III, Gen., Humphrey, Atty. H. Hubert in September possession ed of a con- Foley, and Tom Ramsey County Atty., Dar-' trolled substance that the lessee of the Hill, Ramsey County Atty., rell C. Asst. St. apartment had been arrested in Paul, appellant. possession and twice in 1988 for of con- trolled substances. The mother of the les- Voss, Barry Square, V. Calhoun Minne- previously see had Deputy contacted Han- apolis, respondent. complain defendant, kee to who was III, Gen., Humphrey, Atty. Hubert H. living daughter, with her had involved her Gen., Early, Sp. Atty. James B. Asst. St. daughter drug use. Another confiden- Paul, for amicus curiae. tial informant also revealed that a white drug
male with red hair was involved the sales at this address. 2, 1988, approximately On November
KEITH, Chief Justice. a.m., 11:00 Hankee observed the red-haired granted petition meeting We the state’s occupants re- male a car appeals’ view of the parking court of decision re- complex approxi- lot of the versing the conviction of Mose Lindsey mately to ten five minutes. The red-haired possession with intent to distribute cocaine. male then exited the car and entered the The drugs by police apart- apartment were found building and the unit under sur- by Lindsey ment used in a search autho- veillance. One of two men Hankee identi- rized approached over fied as lookouts the vehicle and spoke occupants. established cause. with the two The vehicle Lindsey’s trial court denied motion to just then moved to outside the window of suppress, finding no apartment, anyone constitutional violation the apartment so statutory noncompliance did could have looked down see them. The suppression not warrant of the evidence. apartment, got red-haired male left the into occupants suspects car and met with the for two tories of the they investigat- ing, defendant, minutes. including and, to three using the format of the search the same these their Based on observations and observations that Hankee later detailed professional experience, Hankee and the the affidavit. The authorized the accompanying him surveillance be- search and instructed Hankee to document drug place. lieved a transaction had taken *3 telephone conversation and to return it They the car to the followed intersection of judge possible to the as soon as after the Iglehart, they pulled Dale and over search. vehicle, approached As he vehicle. containing baggie Hankee what observed Hankee executed the warrant at 1:40 appeared on the dash- to be rock cocaine p.m., approximately one hour and ten min- p.m., Hankee arrested the board. At 12:30 utes after Burch and Hill were arrested. Hill, Marilyn occupants, Burch and Walter The officers found approximately grams pur- told the officers the cocaine was who cocaine, scales, $1,800 three and in cash chased from a red-headed male at unoccupied in the apartment. Lindsey and apartment building, got and that this male the lessee of apartment returned while the cocaine from a Lindsey. man named the search progress was in and were ar- They also just told Hankee that Burch was rested. Hankee left with Lindsey a written giving Hill ride and that Burch had no inventory seized, of the items which is involvement cocaine. While mak- form, of the warrant but prepare did not ing Iglehart, the arrest at Dale and Hankee the actual warrant section of the form at Burch, sitting observed who was premises. Hankee left the scene at car, squad talking back seat of the and p.m., 4:30 went pre- back his office and making signals group people to a pared the search warrant and affidavit. nearby. sidewalk Hankee believed Burch prepare Hankee testified that to the search trying get apart- was word back warrant he used the notes he had used they ment that had been arrested. Hankee speaking judge when with the over the likely expected determined Burch was back phone, presented and that when apartment building, at and that if he copy, judge written indicated it re- return, got did not or if word back to the telephone flected conversation held ear- arrest, apartment of the other day. lier that drugs destroyed there would be or moved. II jail Hill and Burch were taken to the and Approximately thirty only booked. af- minutes constitutional error Lind arrest, sey charges ter the Hankee appeal returned to the in this is the state’s apartment building and alleged Deputy noticed the sentries failure to establish place. Sitting placed still in an unmarked car Hankee was under oath for the tele complex, phonic outside the he called application.1 on his car The fourth phone county attorney an assistant amendment to the United and States Constitu thought get I, asked if he he could a tele- tion and article 10 of the Minnesota phone county attorney require probable "sup warrant. The di- Constitution judge. Deputy ported by rected him to call a or affirmation.” Hankee Oath U.S. Const, Const, IV, I, judge approximately p.m., reached a amend. Minn. art 10. 1:09 and, circumstances, explained when on Officer Hankee’s the Based judge telephone procedure, presented, the trial court assented to the the documents placed tape offered to record the Hankee had been under conversation. determined findings he did The trial court’s factual advised Hankee not think oath. recording clearly set aside if erroneous. necessary. was At the Rasmus- finding Because the hearing, Deputy Hankee testified he Minn.R.Civ.P. 52.01. sen placed under oath is reason- the names and criminal his- told Hankee Accordingly, demonstrated need to with a written we need not reach the issue constitutionally required. recording affidavit are whether a key factors the traditional record, One supported ably it is that takes time process search warrant Lindsey’s set aside not be application, prepare the affida- in order to must fail. error constitutional claimed to find and warrant and vit according secure the needed authorization — Ill National study, conducted to one in this case is whether issue The critical Courts, average 3of for State Center statutes, Minnesota noncompliance with Largely because 4 hours. Id. at anticipate the for or provide do nature of the traditional cumbersome requires the use of process, Advisory Com- search warrant through suppression of evidence to the Federal Rules of mittee Criminal type of warrant. execution of adoption recommended the Procedure issuance for the process 41(d)(2), authorizing The traditional the issuance of a During known. is well a search warrant search warrant sworn *4 officer becomes police investigation, by telephone appro- or other communicated search, rather than the circumstances make priate that a warranted means aware “[i]f search, required. dispense The offi- a written it reasonable to a warrantless 41(c)(2), ap- which was for advice and affidavit.” Rule may supervisor call a cer by Supreme States prepares proved a the United officer then The assistance. adopted by Congress in in 1976 and Court warrant. application, affidavit and written 1977, provides: help doing may obtain The officer prosecu- upon Testimony from a other officers and/or Warrant Oral from (A) The officer prosecutor. or assistant tor Rule. If the circum- General neutral, detached judge a then finds it stances make reasonable —a application, presents the magistrate affidavit, with a written Federal —and The must and warrant. magistrate may affidavit issue a warrant based affiant or an oath to the upon testimony either administer communicat- sworn oral on its face appropriate that the affidavit shows by insure ed or other The the officer. that it was sworn means. reading application
judge, (B) Application. person The who is asking any questions of affidavit and after requesting prepare shall a warrant affiant, independent de- must make an duplicate a document to be known as probable cause ex- of whether termination original warrant and shall read such du- application satisfy fails to verbatim, ists. If the warrant, plicate original may reject application judge, magis- magistrate. The Federal Federal verbatim, return it to the officer more informa- enter, or shall what is so trate If, hand, investigation. on the other magistrate tion or to such on a document read original is satisfied that cause is as the warrant. to be known judge may approve applica- present, magistrate may direct that The Federal sign the warrant. officer and modified. tion the warrant be colleagues then execute the search war- (C) his If the Federal Issuance. rant, identifying typically after themselves that the circumstances trate is satisfied announcing authority con- their as to make it reasonable to are such providing party temporaneously whose and that dispense with a written affidavit being copy a privacy is invaded with or grounds application for the exist inventory of items seized. The of- written probable cause to believe that there is the warrant then files a exist, magistrate ficer who obtained shall the Federal they issuing judge indicating the return with the issuance of a warrant direct- order the executing prop- time of and what person requesting date and the warrant to ing the erty magistrate’s For a more detailed sum- sign was seized. Federal name mary process, original The Fed- duplicate see Van warrant. al., magistrate immediately sign et 15-40 eral shall Search Warrant Process on the (Nat’l original warrant and enter Center for State Courts Circumstances, the exact original Exigent face of the 27 Clev.St.L.Rev. (1978). Or, ordered to be time when warrant was as another commentator it, issued. put require “It may reexamination of upon some of the justifications traditional kind of evidence as is based same allowing searches a without since sufficient for a warrant affidavit. many exigent of these turn on circum- (D) Recording and Certification impracticable stances that make it to obtain Testimony. a caller informs the When Wright, warrant.” 3 C. Federal Practice magistrate purpose of Federal that the 2d, and Procedure —Criminal 670.1 at warrant, the Fed- request the call is to is, availability That of a magistrate immediately place eral shall process logically re- oath person under each whose police duces the number cases which and each forms basis of can successfully claim that warrantless person applying for If a that warrant. necessary based on certain available, voice-recording device types of exigent circumstances. For exam- magistrate shall Federal ple, if the circumstances are such of such device all of call after means delay an hour or an hour-and-a-half the caller informs the Federal obtain a warrant would not like- purpose request of the call is to ly result in the destruction evidence but stenographic a warrant. or Otherwise delay likely of 3 to hours would result long hand verbatim record shall be made. evidence, destruction voice-recording If a is used device or *5 jurisdiction a allowing telephonic search made, stenographic the record Federal warrants would have a harder time at a magistrate shall have record the tran- suppression hearing claiming that a war- scribed, certify accuracy shall of the rantless search was prevent needed to transcription, copy and shall file a destruction of evidence. Stated different- original transcription record and the with ly, jurisdiction allowing telephonic long the court. If a hand verbatim determining made, magistrate Federal exigent the fact whether circumstances signed copy shall file with the court. present were for warrantless search will (E) Contents. The contents of a war- give likely weight be less to factors such upon testimony rant shall be the delay as in obtaining a traditional war- same as contents of a warrant difficulty locating rant and the judge. affidavit. Neither the Minnesota Rules of Criminal (F) Additional Rule for Execution. dealing Procedure nor the statutes person The who executes the warrant (see search warrants Minn.Stat. 626.04- §§ shall enter the exact time of execution 626.17)provide any guidance police offi- duplicate original the face of the war- telephonic cers or courts in issuance of rant. search warrants. Minnesota is not (G) Suppress Motion to Precluded. unique. See R. Van The Search faith, Absent bad evidence Process, (Nat’l Chart I at 142-159 Warrant pursuant to a warrant issued Center State Courts this paragraph subject under not to suppress motion this court decided two cases the circumstances were not such great Andries, 297 relevance: State v. make it reasonable with a (Minn.1980) Meizo, 124 and State v. N.W.2d written affidavit. (Minn.1980). in- 297 N.W.2d Andries search warrant issued adoption 41(c)(2) volved The of R. “has changed following procedures the basic set forth in equation used courts in [federal] 41(c)(2) determining for the issuance of exigency given of a situa- tion which is justify claimed to warrants federal warrant- Marek, less Telephonic system. police search.” E. officer had Equation A suspect possess Search New Warrants: information a believed testimo- of the unrecorded part on the basis leaving town. be marijuana soon saying: ny, closest attorney called county sought away surely preferable and It is 85 miles was judge who a search war- recorded at the time be telephone authorization magistrate, by the determination call between cause 3-way A conference rant. every presumably will effort attorney county judge, However, in end. accord- to this deputy made by both recorded was its Fourth Amendment and ance signed the affidavit deputy judge. peculiar demands and recognition of the af- judge, of a witness. presence justice system, criminal existed, needs del- determining probable ter flexibility in the war- there must be some signing deputy the task egated clear, case it is process. In this rant the warrant. name to judge's in the record be- from sworn transcript of the conversa- A us, magistrate had suffi- fore tion, the warrant affidavit him to testimony before cient sworn hearing use the omnibus at available probable cause. Accord- properly find challenging the issuance defendant Fourth standards of ingly, said: 126. The court Id. at of the warrant. thus, and, Amendment are satisfied upholding hesitancy have no “We pursuant to the warrant seized procedures followed constitutionality of the tri- at defendant’s properly admitted “remarkably sim- which were in this case” al. by the established ilar” to Procedure Rules of Criminal Federal Concurring specially, N.W.2d at 129. 125. The court 41(c)(2). said:- Justice Todd notwithstanding upheld the warrant it is emphasize the fact that I wish to rule or stat- any applicable the absence desirable preferable but most procedures followed setting forth the ute at the time testimony be recorded pro- notwithstanding that the this case and cause determination 626.05 Minn.Stat. cedures used violated §§ lead to do so can magistrate. The failure specify that the and 626.11 to situations *6 by concluded sign warrant. We give testi- called to subsequently be saying: to prosecution mony on behalf in this proceedings. issued upholding the warrant the nature validate inter- serving not mean to sanction the best regard we do this as not procedure a it judicial system use of such because
indiscriminate ests of the government that all suggest judicial nor do branch of places we procedure is of matter what executive branch no as a witness used, In this case there government. valid. will be for a war- need such was a demonstrated dissent, Wahl, argued Id. at 129. in the stat- rant, specified should be of recordation that some sort followed, a substantially ute were Id. at 129-30. mandated. was thereafter record was made which generally ought to be Recordation in chal- by defendant for use available there helps insure that it required because Un- lenging issuance of the warrant. review and contemporaneous record to is a circumstances, conclude we der these make a failure to properly was warrant search lead to the unfortu sort can record of some issued. issuing judge situation where nate at 125-26. N.W.2d suppres upon at a subsequently called be testimony. The record hearing give to Meizo, search sion the written v. State contempora the kind of is not in this case supplemented application was have made. been record that testimony given neous unrecorded oral sworn but ap of However, the court agree with person applicant supports that the record peals’ conclusion upheld issued trate. We person court’s determination that the affi- lieu pro- the trial of ceeding with prepared following application; search accu- davit appli- reflected the of rately (d)The substance need for a search is such that earlier of fact cant’s statements over without the telephonic procedure a provided the telephone and that those facts search warrant could not be obtained and issuing judge for there significant with sufficient basis would be a risk that determining there evidence would destroyed. be apartment. to search this Memorandum William Foley, Deputy E. Director, Administrative Offices United concluding Although (September 20, 1977), States Courts quoted search, cause to shows Marek, Telephonic at E. Search Warrants: appeals concluded that the trial court Equation Exigent A New Circum- suppressed should have the evidence stances, 35, 41 27 Clev.St.L.Rev. nn. 30-31 ground application failed to estab need dispensing lish a with the normal follow, however, It does not that a requirement the application and affida failure to demonstrate a need for such writing. vit we noted required suppression of evi there was a need a tele demonstrated dence pursuant seized search made phonic opposed a tra warrant as 41(c)(2)(G) such a warrant. Fed.R.Crim.P. warrant, thereby implying ditional search expressly provides: that an for such a warrant should faith, Absent bad demonstrate need. 297 N.W.2d pursuant obtained to a warrant generally We believe that and in the ab paragraph subject under this not legislation rule sence or a to the con suppress motion to ought trary, showing of need to be made the circumstances were not such as to search warrant make it to dispense reasonable with a process. written affidavit. 41(c)(2)(A), requires the e.g., applicant to recognizes, As question this rule demonstrate that “the make circumstances judge, or whether not issue it reasonable a written ques is different from the Shortly following adoption
affidavit.” pretrial tion faced a trial court at a rule, judicial the federal the federal ad suppression hearing, specifically, whether ministration formulated and distributed suppress or the evidence. As we rule, guidelines applying including Mitjans, made clear State guideline dealing “Demonstrating (Minn.1987), or whether not to Dispensing Need for aWith Written Affi suppress evidence because davit”: *7 in the of evidence violation a statute or rule developed Criteria should be in each “quintessentially judicial is issue.” In a to court determine when and under what cases, already number of we have made telephonic procedure the circumstances is judicial clear our intent that a violation of a acceptable. vary While conditions will procedure such as that set forth Fed. court, examples from court to such of necessarily R.Crim.P. 41 will not result in following: criteria could include the suppression the of the evidence seized. In (a) agent The magis- cannot reach the this we have followed the federal cases during regular in his trate office dealing This, of with violations the rule. hours; fact, approach is the that we taken in have (b) agent making the is a search deciding suppress whether to significant the magistrate; distance from that, though seized in searches constitu (c) tional, See, is statutory factual situation such that it involve violations. Smith, 497, would be for e.g., unreasonable a substitute 504- agent, (Minn.1985) who is near (refusing suppress located 05 to be trate, present to a written affidavit in cause violation was technical violation of telephonic of search that use can be little doubt “[tjhere
statute and
sense.3
warrant makes
on
been issued
have
a court order would
Schinzing, 342 N.W.2d
request”); State v.
in this case were
Clearly, any defects
(Minn.1983)(citing some of the
105, 108-09
ap-
nor deliberate.
neither intentional
court to
same ef
issuing
if he
judge
other cases
this
plicant asked the
376,
Mollberg,
judge, ap-
310 Minn.
fect);
the conversation and
State
case
(1976)(stating
parently not
with the Andries
familiar
386-87, 246 N.W.2d
preferred procedure
and with
agree
approach
fully
that “[w]e
telephonic
issuance
Federal courts”
viola
adopted
necessary.
was not
said
recordation
tions of
sub-
these facts and the fact
Given
in this
we conclude
the facts
Under
stantially contemporaneous
record was
properly denied defen-
trial court
makes it clear that
made which
The officer rea-
suppress.
motion
dant’s
pre-
have
if
still
a need for
sonably
that there was
believed
followed, we
procedure had been
ferred
i.e., entry
got
word
prompt entry,
before
appeals’
court of
conclu-
believe
arrest had
to those inside
an
been
back
required
suppression
is
sion
immediately returning to
made. Instead of
wrong under our caselaw.4
making
purpose of
the scene for the
suppression was
While we conclude that
engaged
entry, the officer
warrantless
required, we add that the flaws
careful,
prudent course:
more
process in
this case illustrate
need
arrestees,
an
then asked
booked
assist-
proper procedures are
action to insure that
permission
apply
county attorney for
ant
telephonic
issuing
search warrants.
used
telephonic search warrant.2 Given
for a
any
In the absence
amendments
sitting in his un-
go-ahead,
the officer—
specifically
is-
regulating the
statutes
apartment,
car outside
where
marked
telephonic search warrants or
suance of
keep
eye
he
on the situation and
could
amendments to the Minnesota Rules
began
necessary,
try-
if
presumably react
Procedure,
po-
only
direct
Criminal
can
telephone.
car
ing
contact a
his
officers,
judges
prosecutors and
lice
arrests,
he was
Within 39 minutes
forth in
set
and 31 minutes later
talking
41(c)(2)
and to those recommended
other
approval
judge’s
e.g.,
et
commentators —see
R. Van
85-87,
proceeded
entry.
al.,
It
to make
seems
Process
The Search Warrant
(Nat’l
for State
us
one of those fact situations
Center
Courts
is
screening prosecutor orga-
Department
applying
of Justice not
has en-
officer and
2.The
applications
facts,
couraged
their
sought,
officers to "clear"
be
nize
list
items to
encouraged partic-
prosecutors
has
but
necessary
present-
that all
information
insure
prosecutors
ipation
confer-
ed.
Id.
Telephonic
E. Marek.
Search Warrants:
ences.
Circumstances,
Exigent
Equation
A New
Another,
course,
exempli-
is the situation
The authors of a
Clev.St.L.Rev.
study
where an
in an out-
fied
process
of the search warrant
community does not have access to a local
state
of State Courts recommend the
National Center
use,
many
but must travel
miles
obtain a
practical,
three-way
of a
conversa-
warrant.
officer,
involving
prosecutor
tion
magistrate.
danger
"One
the
procedure
view of
and in
of our
this decision
view
necessary
might
element
that a
*8
rights
conclusion that defendant’s constitutional
inadvertently
this
omitted and that
omission
used,
by
procedures
not
the
violated
not be
until after the seizure had
detected
not
not
the
conten-
need
and do
address
state’s
Casting
as a collo-
been made.
that
tion
this
should follow
so-called
quy
prosecutor
lim-
between the
and the officer
good
exception
exclusionary
faith
rule
its the risk of inadvertent omissions
further
by
adopted
applied
the United
Su-
organize
magis-
States
helps to
the materials for the
Leon,
preme Court in United States v.
468 U.S.
Search
trate."
Van
Warrant
897,
3405,
(1985).
(1984)
Courts
Process 109 Nat'l Center for State
104 S.Ct.
865 departments, by Police issue a assisted warrant based on testimony; oral (2) recorded, prosecutors, may adopting (3) also oral must consider applicant prepare must regulations following written war- assist officers in rant and read it verbatim to the proper procedures seeking when magistrate it, who transcribes verbatim regard, In this see Pro- warrants. warrant; (4) onto duplicate transcript fessor rule- LaFave’s discussion of the oral signed sworn must be LaFave, making in W. Constitutional presence affiant in the of the Style, Rules Police: A Matter trate and filed with the court. Syracuse L.Rev. We merely given hold that facts and cir- Collectively, requirements of Fed. case, suppression cumstances of the 41(c)(2) R.Crim.P. promote serve to the ac- required. evidence seized was curacy probable cause determination course, might different the result and ensure the defendant a documented be otherwise. challenge basis from which to the sufficien- cy of the Those are the evidence. same and judgment Reversed of conviction objectives by advanced Minn.Stat. 626.09 reinstated. (1990) requires which affidavits be writing. GARDEBRING, J., took no majority importance notes the or consideration decision of this case. federal specifically rule requirements, WAHL, (dissenting). showing of need” “reasonable and the con- respectfully I Only dissent. temporaneous once before recording, but fails find has this court considered the issuance that the any absence of one of sup- them applied ports for and authorized invalidation of the warrant. be- lieve, however, telephone. over the In State cumulative harm (Minn.1980), by created complete lack of we affirmed adherence any must requirements use of such a invalidate warrant which was autho the warrant this case. by fully rized complied who requirements of the relevant statutes presented We are with a case in which no except personally did not precautions preserve were taken to the ac- sign delegated the warrant but that minis curacy of supporting the information terial the applicant. act to We noted that protect right warrant or to the defendant’s followed that case were challenge probable cause.2 There was remarkably similar those established need, no demonstration of reasonable no the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure recording, no written that authorizes of telephonic the use war record of supporting the facts the determi- (citing rants. at 125 approval Id. Fed. nation of cause until 41(c)(2)) R.Crim.P. result, issued. As a there is no basis which the defendant here rule, The federal court looks to challenge probable at the cause time the again guide courts, today for our trial my issued. view is- provides safeguards numerous to ensure suance of the warrant in this case not proper issuance of a war- 626.09, requires Minn.Stat. violates but rant. Under that rule: suppression of the evidence seized.3 persuade must that the cir- present cumstances a reasonable need to Andries we noted: majori- contemporaneously 1. The of that set text rule is forth be recorded "so ty p. provide adequate transcribed affidavit will determining sufficiency basis for the evi- especially I am troubled lack dence if issue later arise.” contemporaneous recording here. This court preference recording has articulated its 41(c)(2)(G) 3.I note while evidence used as the basis that, faith, provides absent bad a motion to Advisory determination. Committee to *9 suppress prevail will not that it noted that the must Center, him placing directly in across upholding warrant this tention In county from courthouse not mean to sanction the street we do procedure might applied use such he for a warrant indiscriminate have suggest telephone Andries, all apply do that person. nor in procedure matter is no what ing together county for a used, will be valid. attorney, participated in a conference call applica during prepared which he read a in the instant Upholding the warrant issuing judge tion and affidavit to be previously undermines our stated case signing presence the affidavit fore adhering preference for contrast, Here, sharp witness. Rules, particularly Federal contained in the phone officer called the from a car recording of oral tes- contemporaneous alleged “exigent cir existence encourages use of tele- timony. It cumstances,” informing without that does not phone warrants manner trip county jail. previous about his opportunity a fair afford defendant Furthermore, entirely contrary to the situa accuracy challenge the of the basis for Andries, tion in no For those probable cause determination. Instead, record was created here. both the
reasons, I decision affirm the would supporting affida appeals. court of completed sug vit after the fact. To TOMLJANOVICH, (dissenting). gest procedure provides such any that protection from an search is unreasonable disagree majority’s with conclusion simply deny reality.1 These facts reflect pursuant that evidence seized so situation different from that An- question is admissible search warrant majority’s dries as make the reliance on against respondent. misplaced. I hold that decision Andries, has not the search state demonstrated (Minn.1980), recognized court upon probable question based telephone search warrant obtained over during and that the evidence seized violates Minn.Stat. 626.05 against respondent. inadmissible (1990) in Minn.Stat. 626.11 that it does signature mag- not bear the Nevertheless,
istrate. at 125. See id concluded because compliance issued in full Andries was statutory require- all relevant other
ments, signature magistrate’s because task,” purely
represented “a ministerial and because the warrant demon- In re the Petition for DISCIPLINARY obtaining strated need ACTION AGAINST James HUNT W. person, rather than in the war- ER, Jr., Attorney at Law of the State challenge. itself rant withstood See id of Minnesota. opinion, presented my 125-26. In the facts No. C2-89-934. substantially
here are so different as to Supreme Court Minnesota. require a result. different the nearest available Aug. away. 85was miles The record before us Hill here indicates Officer Hankee arrested p.m. Burch transport at 12:30 and then Ramsey County
ed them the Adult De join majority’s specula- was affidavit, reasonable to with a not wish written I do implication provision of that defects at tion that obvious issue here "were noncompliance all other forms of nor neither intentional deliberate.” grounds provide suppression. statute do