S.D.Ga.: Computer generated signature on a search warrant not Fourth Amendment violation

Defendant is charged with arranging the murder of her soldier husband on a military base, and a military judge issued a search warrant. The fact the warrant had a computer generated signature is not a constitutional error. There is no constitutional requirement of a handwritten signature as long as the issuing judge performs the neutral and detached review the Fourth Amendment requires. United States v. Eubank, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69919 (S.D.Ga. March 31, 2015), adopted 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69890 (S.D. Ga. May 29, 2015):

Eubank also challenges the technical sufficiency of the military search warrants, pointing out that they bear “mechanical or computer generated signature stamps” rather than handwritten signatures. Doc. 159 at 11. The Fourth Amendment does not require a handwritten signature or, for that matter, “any other specific marking from the issuing judge” on a search warrant. United States v. Cruz, 774 F.3d 1278, 1287 (10th Cir. 2014) (district judge’s failure to sign or date search warrant did not render warrant facially invalid); United States v. Lyons, 740 F.3d 702, 727 (1st Cir. 2014) (“we find no sufficient reason to read a signature requirement into the Fourth Amendment, and we leave to any future revisers of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(e) whether to adopt such a presently-omitted requirement for search warrants”); United States v. Futch, CR603-6 (R&R entered July 14, 2003) (“‘As long as the magistrate in fact performs the substantive tasks of determining probable cause and authorizing the issuance of the warrant, the amendment is satisfied.'”). Further, a military judge is expressly granted authority to issue either “written or oral” search warrants. MRE 315(b). The military judges’ use of a computer generated signature stamp, therefore, violated neither the Constitution nor any rules governing the issuance of search warrants.