AR: Apparent scrivener’s error in the PC went uncorrected and became speculation

Search warrant was issued February 5, 2015 and showed the date of defendant’s alleged drug dealing as November 4-5, 2015. Whether it was a typo that should have been 2014, or should have been February 4-5, 2015 (which was speculative on this record), the search warrant was stale. (Reading between the lines, it’s possible the state could have saved this by testimony at the suppression hearing that it was a mere scrivener’s error, but they didn’t.) Batthrick v. State, 2016 Ark. App. 444, 2016 Ark. App. LEXIS 479 (Sept. 28, 2016):

On this record we cannot conclude that the affidavit for search warrant set forth facts and circumstances establishing probable cause to believe that things subject to seizure would be found in Mr. Bathrick’s house. This is because the affidavit represented that the CI observed these items on November 4, 2015, and that the affiant had interviewed the CI regarding his observations on November 5, 2015, which was nine months after the affidavit was sworn out on February 5, 2015. The trial court and the State characterize the inaccurate dates given in the affidavit as a scrivener’s error or a misprision. Although the dates were clearly incorrect, the trial court had no basis upon which to determine which dates were intended in place of the incorrect dates in the affidavit. There was no evidence that, when confronted with the erroneous dates in the affidavit, the issuing magistrate took any testimony to clear up the discrepancy. Nor was there any testimony presented at either of the suppression hearings. The trial court’s conclusion that the intended dates were the day before and the day of the application for search warrant was mere speculation.