NY: Non-existent court on SW and illegible signature of judge voids warrant

In this child pornography case, the officer here accidentally typed the name of a nonexistent town criminal court at the top of the warrant. “The Village Justice [of the Peace] signed the warrant without correcting the mistake. His signature was affixed on a line marked ‘Signature of Judge or Justice,’ but it is illegible, and the court is not named.” The warrant is void because it can’t be ascertained who issued it, and that violates the neutral and detached magistrate requirement. People v Gavazzi, 2012 NY Slip Op 8054, 20 N.Y.3d 907, 957 N.Y.S.2d 660, 981 N.E.2d 256 (2012):

The Appellate Division held that the search warrant did not substantially comply with CPL 690.45(1), because it contained “no information from which the issuing court can be discerned” … We agree with the Appellate Division. A search warrant must contain “[t]he name of the issuing court” (CPL § 690.45[1]). The standard for adherence with the statutory requirement is “substantial — rather than literal — compliance” … If “a conscientious effort” … was made to comply with the statutory requirement, and the warrant contains information from which the identity of the issuing court may reasonably be inferred, courts will typically validate a warrant … Here, the Village Justice who signed the warrant included no designation of his court, his signature is illegible, there is no seal, and the caption typed by the trooper refers to a nonexistent town. While it is clear that the warrant directs Village of Greene Police officers to search a house in Greene, there is no indication whatsoever which of the several courts that have authority to issue warrants in the Village of Greene issued the warrant permitting the search. As the Appellate Division put it, “on its face the warrant appears to [have been] issued by an unidentified judge in a nonexistent court and town in a different county” … As such, we conclude that the warrant did not substantially comply with CPL 690.45(1). Finally, contrary to our dissenting colleague, suppression is warranted because the name requirement of CPL § 690.45 (1) “operates directly to protect and preserve a constitutionally guaranteed right of the citizen” (People v Patterson, 78 NY2d 711, 717, 587 N.E.2d 255, 579 N.Y.S.2d 617 [1991]; …). The right safeguarded by the name requirement is the right that is protected by the constitutional requirement of a warrant (US Const, 4th Amend; NY Const, art I, § 12) — the right to have a “neutral and detached magistrate” (Johnson v United States, 333 U.S. 10, 14, 68 S. Ct. 367, 92 L. Ed. 436 [1948]) sign the warrant to search one’s house.