*1
STATE MATHEWS, W. Defendant-
Marcus
Appellant. MATHEWS,
Marcus W.
Plaintiff-Appellant, Idaho, Respondent.
STATE of 20154, 21127.
Nos.
Supreme
Moscow, April 1995 Term. 20, 1997.
March Services, Inc., Legal E. Mau- Aid Laflin, Megan Supervising Attorney and
reen interns, Musgrove, Sheryl legal M. Grant Moscow, appellant. argued, Nash, Counsel, Perce Douglas Chief Nez Committee, Amicus Nez Curiae Tribal Tribe. Perce Lance, General; Attorney Michael Alan G. Henderson, General, Attorney ar- Deputy A. Boise, respondent. gued, *2 ON REHEARING Court and informed her that the warrants being prepared. Judge were Miles told MeDEVITT, Justice. Rolfe she would meet the officers at her Appellant (Mathews), Marcus Mathews ar- prior office to the search to review the war- charged rested and degree with first murder rants to the Nez Perce Tribal Law 18-4001, 18-4002, under I.C. and 18-4003 and Order Code. wife, estranged the death of his Holly January On Officer Greene took Morris, Lewiston, Idaho, appeals an order the affidavits for the search wаrrants to Nez of the district denying court his motion to County Magistrates Perry Perce and Elliott. suppress evidence obtained in a search of his Judge Perry signed regarding the documents property on the Nez Perce Indian Reserva- the warrant for the Mathews’s home and tion. Mathews asserts that the search war- Judge given Elliott was all the documents rant was invalid because it was obtained and relating to the search Henry warrant for the prior executed without approval. tribal court Judge residence. Elliott notarized the offi- Specifically, argues Mathews that the state’s cer’s oath on the Affidavit for Search War- jurisdiction to order a search of prop- Indian rant and all regard- other documents erty ing country precluded except in Indian the warrant the detention order and the sеarch warrant. The plenary jurisdiction exclusive warrant and of the fed- detention order following government affairs, eral over Indian fed- 14,1992, day, January on after had been preemptive eral legislation, tribal sov- executed. ereignty. case, Mathews, Docket rehearing. No. is on Department, The Lewiston Police accom- panied by Deputy Taylor Don of the Nez appeals Mathews also an order of the dis- County Perce Sheriffs Office and a BIA trict denying court his postconvic- motion for officer, executed the search warrants at the State, tion relief. That ease is Mathews v. Henry home on the Nez Perce Reservation urges Docket No. 21127. Mathews obtaining prior approval Judge Court to overturn the decision of the trial Miles. The Lewiston did confer with cоurt unsigned facially that an warrant is not BIA, prosecutor with tribal Elliot Mof- State, deficient. We first discuss Mathews v. fett, and Attorney with the Idaho General Docket No. 21127. Attorney’s the United States office be- executing fore the warrants. As a result of I. searches, the Lewiston officers recov- ered, execution of the FACTS PERTAINING TO weapon pair the murder and a of tennis BOTH APPEALS shoes that matched tracks found at the scene 16,1992, January On Mathews was arrest- of the crime. Mathews was then arrested charged ed and with the murder of his es- charged degree with the first murder of wife, tranged (Morris), Holly Morris who was Morris. Lewiston, found dead in her home Idaho. suppress Mathews moved to the evidence Mathews is an enrolled member of the Nez obtained from the home on the Tribe, living Perce Indian and was on the grounds jur- that the state authorities lacked reservation at the time of Morris’s death. A isdiction to execute a Indian arrest, days prior few to Mathews’s Officer Country. This motion was denied and Math- Greene of the Department Lewiston Police ews plea entered an Idaho Criminal Rule 11 prepared support two affidavits of re- guilty preserving appeal. this issue for quests for search warrants for Mathews’s home on the reservation and the home of II. brother-in-law, Mathews’s sister and Donna PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Henry, Bill also on the reservation. Of- STATE, IN MATHEWS V. ficer Greene informed Officer Ed Rolfe of DOCKET NO. Lapwai office of the Bureau of Indian (BIA) Affairs of the warrants. Rolfe contact- appeal Concurrent with Judg- his from his Conviction, Judge ed Miles of petition the Nez Perce Tribal ment of Mathews filed a Judge sig- Elliott’s asked that the affidavit with post-conviction petition relief. sen- the warrant. district court to vacate Mathews’s nature was fact plea. due to involuntariness of tence as- The issues raised included ineffective that at time Cor- This Court FINDS prosecutorial, police of counsel and sistance left and the other officers poral Greene *3 Each issues of the and misconduct. 13,1992, Judge January on his chambers ques- legal and
raised centered on factual proba- had was Elliott found there un- based the execution of an tions residence; Henry cause to search ble Thereafter, the state signed search warrant. Judge Elliott intended summary disposition and filed a motion for residence; Henry Judge for the Mathews filed an answer and cross-motion. signed search Elliott he had believed arguments heard district Oral Henry search of the opinion denying post-convic- court issued its residence; thought the Judge Elliott and appealed or- tion relief. Mathews also war- officers would execute search der. office____ his The rant after left appeal to deter- On this Court was unable only conclusion to be drawn reasonable not mine from the record whether or Ms. Judge simply a mis- is that Elliott made searched, Henry, the occupant of home take, i.e., thought signed he had (i.e. questioned validity of the for the of the search warrant search lacking a signature), before the Henry the officers residence at time Judge was conducted and if Elliott was 13, 1992, January on left chambers had aware he not search warrant. he had not. on September This Court remanded this case to the trial court for a determina- of thesе issues.
tion two III. remand,
On the trial court held an eviden- tiary hearing Re- Findings and issued on ISSUES ON APPEAL MATHEWS IN The in part: mand. trial court found STATE, DOCKET NO. 21127 V. Henry ques- This Court FINDS that Ms. first is whether Mathews’s validity tioned the of the search warrant involuntary de- plea was because he was prior to the time of the search. prived right of his to effective assistance testimony Corporal Thomas H. guaranteed by Four- the Sixth and counsel Greene, Heniy Jr. and Ms. Donna conflict of the teenth Amendments United States however, issue; assuming on this I, § Article the Ida- 13 of Constitution (Mathews) has appellant the burden reasonably compe- in that a ho Constitution proof, prepon- establishes a evidence discovered, tent defense counsel have shortly derance after the law enforce- ev- investigated suppress moved to Henry ment officers entered residence illegally obtained and the failure idence 13,1992, January on and before to do so deficient Mathews’s counsel was residence, Henry of that Ms. was shown is a prejudiced Mathews because there con- copy of search warrant which that, coun- probability but for reasonable time, Judge’s signature. no tained At that error, Mathews neither would sel’s Henry questioned Ms. to, guilty pled nor would have found by pointing search warrant out of, degree first murder. copy nor not dated. action of second issue is whether the through prosecutor, police and Corporal testified that he deceived the state Greene right Henry violated constitutional Ms. her his affidavit Mathews’s trial, process a fair as mandated Judge the search warrant with Elliott’s to due why there was the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments when shе asked and Article Corporal on the to the United States Constitution I, 13,17 the Idaho intended for Ms. to believe and 18 of Constitution. Green Finally, the third issue is whether the dis- B. THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS trict court summarily erred in dismissing INVALID petition post-conviction Mathews’s relief We address first the granting the state’s summary motion for sufficiency of an unsigned warrant as this disposition, without conducting an evidentia- underlies all issues raised in post-convic ry hearing. appeal. tion The resolution of the above-stated issues is dependent upon whether the district court factually It undisputed that the search erred in summarily disposing of Mathews’s Henry home, warrant for the where the mur post-conviction application, given the search weapon discovered,1 der and shoes were signed by warrant was signed by magistrate when the search district place January took January 1992. On *4 13, 1992, proposed Officer Greene took
IV.
warrant, affidavit
acknowledgement
of
deputy
oath from
prosecuting attorney
to
STATE,
IN
ANALYSIS MATHEWS V.
the district court
Magistrate
where
Elliott
DOCKET NO. 21127
reviewed the
pertaining
documents
to the
A. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Henry home.
request
He examined the
for a
search warrant and
witnessed the
summary
A
disposition under I.C.
by Officer Greene on the
19-4906(b)
Judge
affidavit.
§
procedural
is the
equivalent to
Elliott then
acknowledgment
a summary judgment motion under I.R.C.P.
the affidavit
acknowledgment
State,
801, 807,
56. Matthews v.
122 Idaho
oath.
Judge
(1992).
Elliott’s affidavit
1215, 1221
filed
P.2d
post-conviction
A
post-conviction
course of this
proceed
application
relief
may
summarily
be dismissed
ing, he stated
he found that
allegations,
true,
where its
cause
if
would not
existed to believe that
applicant
entitle
evidence men
to
Summary
relief. Id.
tioned
dismissal
affidavit could be fоund at
appropriate,
be
even if the
Henry
applicant’s
home
alleged
fully
and that he
facts are
intended to
uncontroverted
state,
warrant. He then
underlying
because while
swears:
facts
true,
regarded
must be
applicant’s
Apparently
Nevertheless,
forgot.
I
fully
I
conclusions need not
accepted.
be so
Phil
intended to issue the search warrant to the
State,
lips
405, 407,
108 Idaho
700 P.2d
B
Henry
& D
residence as a valid search
(1985).
unsupported
Bald and
allegations
neglected
The fact that I
to
petitioner
recited
are insufficient to
the search warrant
way
should in no
him
evidentiary
entitle
to an
hearing. Pul
taken to mean
I
proba-
did not think
State,
ver v.
93 Idaho
ble cause existed or that I intended to in
grounds
overruled on
other
any way hinder the execution of the search
Tucker,
97 Idaho
the bounds of An unin- civilized part tentional of the human con- V. dition diligent. suffered the most REMAINING ISSUES RAISED ON An in judgment error based a correct
POST-TRIAL HEARING APPEAL understanding intentions of the AND APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT forgivable is also within the bounds con- OF CONVICTION duct. The in this decision case misses the balance. deficient, Having found the we
need not address the balance of the issues I. appeal
raised on are rendered moot. THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS NOT VI. INFIRM, CONSTITUTIONALLY AND THE STATUTORY DEFICIEN- CONCLUSION CY AND WAS HARMLESS COULD erred in summarily district court dis- BE CORRECTED. posing post-conviction applica- of Mathews’s I, Article 17 of the Section Idaho Constitu- tion. We remand to *6 vacate and the district requirement tion does not the set forth of a proceedings court for further consistent with judge’s signature for issuance of a search opinion. this I, requires Section 17 Article a by рartic- of affidavit JOHNSON, Justice and Justice Pro Tern ularly describing place to the be searched JUDD, concur. person thing or to be seized. The SCHROEDER, dissenting. Justice requirement judge’s of a is statuto- ry- This case an innocent in involves mistake judicial process
the
that caused no
policy
harm and
concerning
The
of this Court
the
judgment by police
an error in
a
officer that
oversights
corrections of
of a clerical nature
engrafted
caused no
Court has
harm. The
a
is set forth in
rules:
its own
condition onto
Idaho Constitution
the
that
judgments,
Clerical
orders or
mistakes
the
include.
framers did not
The decision
parts
other
record and errors in
of the
contrary
authority,
runs
to substantial
de-
oversight
arising
record
or omission
from
parts
policy expressed
from
a
this Court’s
may
by
any
be corrected
the court at
time
own
jeopardizes
rules and
an entire class of
notice,
any,
if
and after such
as the court
by
warrants that
been authorized
orders.
legislature
recognized
integral part
as an
Idaho Criminal Rule 36.
judicial process.
imposes
of the
The decision
policy
permits
a
that
This is
of law
suppression
of
court-created sanction
oversights
correction
omissions when
evidence,
jus-
truthful
roots
ignoring the
Analysis
one is harmed.
the facts and
extraordinary remedy.
tification for
that
policy
ap-
law
indicates that this
The
no one from
protect
decision will
future
plied in this case.
judicial misconduct,
magistrate’s
because
likely
address search war-
error was an
to occur
statutes which
Nobody
after this
as before.
in-
rants are clear. Idaho Code defines a search
decision
statutory
as,
writing,
simply
a
defect casts doubt on
“an order in
the name
than
by
telephonic
a
signed
magistrate,
warrants since
state of
or
judge
justice
by
or
to an
directed
officer
when the
are
therein,
other officer au-
subsequent-
officers named
is conducted.
search
warrant,
thorized
law to execute search warrants
which is
ly confirms issuance
directing
officer
seize
to search
exactly
happened
what
this case.
intangibles.”
§
property or
I.C.
19-4401
opinion
“[t]he
indicates
The Court’s
(1987).
sign
a
To issue warrant a
must
enables a
requirement of a
upon finding
the warrant based
a
the officer
citizen to know that
addition,
cause.
In
I.C.
by a
in fact
authorized
has
provides a form
a war-
section 19-4407
the whim or
being
and is not
conducted at
judge’s
provides
space
rant whiсh
for a
reasoning
caprice of
officer.” This
signature.
The lack of a
in this
Court does not
the rule enunciated
undeniably
deficiency,
case is
not one
scrutiny,
since
search warrant need
stand
suppression.
should result
presented
not even be
before
Despite
statutory
definition of a search
conducted,
Gomez,
warrant,
Legislature
the 1994
enacted stat-
(1980),
denied,
cert.
permitting
telephonic
utes
issuance
102 S.Ct.
ceive
Legislature
recognized
notice of
review of
Arizona
this fact
prior
cause
to a
it
telephonic
search
search
when
authorized the use of
warrant.
search warrants where the warrant
signed by
signing
officer
facially
Other
defective warrants
issuing magis-
in
of the
the name
upheld by
Schaffer,
been
this Court. State v.
judge]
[The
trate.
affidavit
1028,
323,
1024,
112 Idaho
739 P.2d
327
support of the
warrant and
search
intend-
(1987) (The search warrant
a suffi
contained
give legal
ed
actions to
effect to
description
cient
property
to be
of the
Judicial
issuance
consider-
searched,
though
even
there
no mailbox
given
ation
to the
inaccurate,
county
and the
road was
because
cause,
existence
the officers
find and did
could
find
resi
the issuance
the warrant was
Gomez,
description.);
dence from the
101
found,
signed by
and the
affidavit was
(A
810,
Idaho at
The the issuance of a ment at the search is the tial officer ruled outset on the consideration supporting magistrate. neutral and detached existence
873 Id.; fataUy Spaulding, deficient. See State v. 289 the search warrant affidavits.” (The (1986) 439, 1047, gains an windfaU. incredible Kan. 1049 defendant sign judge’s “failure to the warrant was irregularity.”). oversight, a technical
mere
II.
Blake,
232,
People
Ill.App.3d
203
In
v.
266
BEHIND THE EXCLU-
THE POLICIES
658,
Ill.Dec.
problem by telephone call to the specifically limited to those cases in which a suppressing There is little deterrent effect in probable the lack warrant’s fatal flaw was 5) the evidence in this ease. The draconian determining cause —the touchstone result that flow from this Court’s deci- or seizure. reasonableness sion is far than the more serious administra- Guzman, 842 P.2d at tive error made this case and (Regardless goal police whether deter- judgment by the error in officer. servеd, rence would state’s exclusion- protected by rights The citizen’s scru- ary applied every rule should be case tiny of the facts and the deter- where to a evidence seized war- probable integri- mination of Judicial cause. supported by probable rant which is not ty preserved by majority’s opinion; is not cause.) (emphasis supplied); Joseph- rather it is diminished because the result in son, justified this ease cannot be to fairminded (1993) (rejection good exception faith people. Form has dominated substance. exclusionary applied retroactively judges pending If case there is concern will care- at the time Guzman was decid- lessly lacking). (emphasis ed where allow search warrants out of added). following presented their But not the hands determination of that is case cause, procedural undisputed good is a here. It is that a there mecha- suffi- *10 remedy mistake employed to the inadvertent probable cient of cause was made of misrepresentation of of the warrant. issuance premises police officer to the citizen whose discussed, previously As this Court out- subject of the search. were the exclusionary purpose rule lined the of Idaho’s 993, 122 Idaho at P.2d at 1, Guzman. 17 of Idaho Constitution Art. Application on facts 672. of the rule these without that “no warrant shall issue states affidavit____” would not further of rule’s stated probable by cause shown Greene, pres- purposes. Corporal not, by who was its ex- provision does constitutional underlying facts reviewed terms, ent when requirement sig- of press include the by judge, and whose affidavit establish- nature, only issuance. The constitution’s but ing requisite probable cause was particularly significant because language is judge, present was also when the 1890, adopted in some 26 provision 19-4401, was issued. the existence Because I.C. years enactment of after the probable Corporal on cause based 19-4406, of our and 19-4407. If the framers personal knowledge, and because he signa- Greene’s impose a had wished to Constitution personally of the war- witnessed the issuance requirement, simply could ture rant, there was no for him to doubt reason as used in employed language same validity. the warrant’s constitutional Officer the statutes. good faith Greene not have acted analysis, I one which believe that better showing Ms. affidavit which ac- with the of our comports text Constitution warrant; however, companied the search rights protects and individual question had no reason to unnecessarily undermining law enforcement personal
warrant based on his observations objectives, treat an is one which does not Moreover, goal in court. of encour- while invalid, per unsigned search warrant as se thoroughness in aging issuing the warrant precise circum- but examines the which one, process worthy unquestionably is it case to determine stances of the individual expense not should be achieved at the made the essential whether the had important goals: equally preservation issuing probable determination before cause integrity judicial respect process and supported an approach warrant. Such exclusionary Application law. rule jurisdic- by decisions from numerous other denigrate facts both. these will Turner, See, e.g., v. tions. United States respectfully I dissent from the Court’s (2d Cir.1977) (as magis- long F.2d opinion. tasks of performs trate in fact substantive determining probable authorizing and cause SILAK, dissenting Justice from Part IVB warrant, Amendment is issuance Fourth opinion: Part VI Court’s satisfied); County Attorney Yuma McGuire, opinion I respectfully dissent. The Court’s 109 Ariz. (1973) (key lack of invalidates issuance warrant
holds warrant, by a and detached and that therefore the consideration neutral obtained, magistrate; weapon where consideration was evidence murder shoes, probable incriminating sup- given to of existence of should have been (1) cause, pressed. disagree, I cause for issuance of for three reasons: found, and affidavit was the Idaho Constitution does lan- was sign every judge, the warrant guage require in each ease that to inadvertent failure it); Spaulding, signed by invalidate a search warrant must be does not valid (1986) (2) judge; the criminal rules of this Court Kan. (where judge finding makes do that a search warrant be intentionally fail- “signed” judge, issues only “issued” conflicting ure mere precedence rules over these take (3) irregularity); if Commonwealth v. statutory provisions; and technical Pellegrini, 405 Mass. 539 N.E.2d search warrant is deemed unconstitutional (1989) (failure case, otherwise valid war- exclusionary not be *11 876
rant, invalid, question where there is no that der the this search for I view these stat- warrant, judge having superseded by intended issue utes as been the I.C.R. 41. judge signed probable the officer’s cause affi- Rule 41 of Idaho Rules the Criminal does not davit, requirement is ministerial which signature dеfect does not include a warrant); Andries, invalidate the v. by State 297 the judge, issuance of warrant (Minn.1980) 124, (requirement N.W.2d 125 precedent sup- Idaho statute and case issuing judge sign port that purely warrant proposition the that when court rules task; long ministerial is valid so procedure as statutes conflict matters issuing performs judge courts, substantive tasks of entrusted then the statute probable determining ordering give way. must Sanchez, issuance); People Cal.App.3d v. 131 provides § “[t]he I.C. that inherent (1982) 323, (inadver- Cal.Rptr. 430, 182 434 power Supreme Court to make rules magistrate’s signature tent absence on governing procedure in all the courts of Ida- traditional warrant is technical defect which recognized ho hereby and confirmed.” warrant); does People not invalidate the v. 1941, long from statute dates after the Supеrior County Ange- Court Los 1864 at statutes issue here. Pursuant to its les, Cal.App.3d 76, 917, Cal.Rptr. 75 141 919 rule-making authority, inherent this Court (1977) purpose (primary of Fourth Amend- Rules, adopted including the Idaho Criminal ment is to that decisions about suffi- 41, 1,1980. July Rule which became effective ciency reliability used evidence specifically Rule 41 addresses the issuance of justify a search be made neutral and search warrants a district or a Smith, magistrate); detached State 562 41(e) magistrate. Although Rule contains a 428, (Ind.Ct.App.1990) (pro- N.E.2d description detailed of the circumstances un- probable vided found cause and intend- judge magistrate may der which or “issue” warrant, ed to signature omission warrant, description and an extensive warrant). will not invalidate warrant, nothing contents of Rule 41 requires only upon whether the absence of a that the warrant issue magistrate’s signature signature magistrate. on a warrant or of a Given error, rule, mere technical and clerical the detailed nature of the and the fact or long whether the absence of the ren- that the 1864 statutes had exis- constitutionally ders the adoption, invalid be- tence at time of the I Rule’s found, probable cause no any specific cause was believe that sig- the omission of depend particular requirement on the facts of the case. nature means that a warrant is case, In this the evidence is uncontroverted valid under the Rules of magistrate intended to magis- of a affidavit, trate, search warrant. magis- long requirements so as the other specifically met, trate stated under oath that issuance he of a search warrant are believed cause existed to find evi- are in this case. dence Morris’ murder at resi- In an earlier case which dence, oversight, simply but that as an provision deemed to with conflict Rule forgot magistrate’s warrant. 41(c), Yoder, 651, 96 534 Idaho P.2d testimony hearing at the after remand like- this Court stated that because the magistrate wise confirmed that the had de- rule was in full force and at all relevant effect termined cause existed for the times, 19-4404, question, § the statute I.C. particular search. Under facts of required complain- which examination of the case, I hold fact ant and witnesses magis- was not before of a issuance was of trate on date conducted 654, further force and effect. Id.
was a clerical or ministerial error that did also, Maxey, P.2d at 774. See invalidate (1994); 873 P.2d Harbaugh, I disagree application of I.C. State v. 837 n. 19-4401, (1993); 19-4406 and 19-4407 would ren- 853 P.2d 582 n. 3 State v. Cur- 539, 540-41, rington, 108 Idaho *12 analysis here The Court’s Plaintiff-Respondent, STATE guided by cases. The should be these earlier signature pro- a requirement of substantive, not cedural and and therefore Defendant-Appellant. SHELTON, Matt precedence should take the Court’s own Rule conflicting a statute.
over 22984. No. opinion The Court’s here states Appeals of Idaho. 19-4401,19-4406, 19-4407 “cre- Code right in a ate a substantive citizen refuse March 1997. pursuant unsigned an permit (italics added). I warrant.” believe all the Court
statement is dicta because upon
called to decide is whether the lack of
magistrate’s invalidates citizen could
warrant. The whether a
lawfully police resist efforts to execute al- an
though supported by one
finding, is not before Court.
Court’s statement could be construed to en-
courage confrontations between citizens being searches are initiated. when
Legal avenues are available to citizens
challenge allegedly invalid warrant: motion,
suppression post-conviction relief
proceeding, damages aor civil action for
under 42 1983 or Idaho Tort U.S.C. proceedings
Claims Act. In such court a full regarding developed
factual record can be
whether the issuance of the warrant was
supported by probable Exactly cause. such
proceedings occurred here in the context post-conviction proceeding, relief
which the under oath testified supported
that he had determined the facts finding cause for the issuance
of the search warrant here.
My I dissent is also based what
perceive unnecessary application
exclusionary rule. For the reasons stated dissent,
Justice Schroeder Part II of
infra, exclusionary I would hold that the applied in this case. reasons, I foregoing all
For
affirm the district court’s decision that invalidate
lack of did
search warrant.