MO: Alteration of SW application after warrant issued is strongly disapproved of, but here did not undermine PC

A mistake as to the name of the person’s BAC to be searched for and seized in the warrant could be overlooked where it correctly appeared 50 times in the affidavit. The officer’s altering the search warrant application with the knowledge of the prosecutor after the warrant issued was strongly disapproved but didn’t undermine the probable cause showing. Schmidt v. Dir. of Revenue, 2020 Mo. App. LEXIS 1088 (Sept. 1, 2020):

The question remains whether the alteration of the warrant application after the warrant was issued voids the warrant judge’s probable cause finding or otherwise renders the warrant invalid. We find that it does neither. Laying aside our concerns with Officer Waaso’s and the prosecuting attorney’s conduct in altering the application⁶, our review is of the warrant judge’s probable cause finding based on the officer’s affidavit and warrant application before it was altered. The subsequent alteration is irrelevant to our review because the warrant judge reviewed the unaltered application. As such, the warrant judge was aware of the inaccuracy Officer Waaso later corrected but still decided that the detailed information in the affidavit and on the application, that abundantly identified Schmidt as the DWI suspect and subject of the requested search, was sufficient on which to find probable cause and issue the warrant. And since we give “great deference to the initial judicial determination of probable cause that was made at the time the warrant issued[,]” id. (quoting Neher, 213 S.W.3d at 49), we conclude that the issuing court had probable cause to issue the warrant.

6 As for the alteration to the warrant application made by Officer Waaso on the advice and with the blessing of the prosecuting attorney, we express our strong disapproval of any changes being made to a warrant application, affidavit, or the warrant itself without the knowledge and approval of the warrant judge. It is clear that neither Officer Waaso nor the prosecuting attorney had the authority to alter the warrant application in question, see Shadwick v. City of Tampa, 407 U.S. 345, 350 (1972) (discussing that a warrant’s issuance must be severed from and disengaged from activities of law enforcement to be neutral and detached as required by Fourth Amendment), and thus, Officer Waaso’s insertion of “Schmidt” on one portion of the warrant application was improper and invalid. Nevertheless, we reject the notion that Officer Waaso’s and the prosecuting attorney’s conduct reflected any ulterior or untoward motive to deceive anyone or to prejudice Schmidt. After Officer Waaso became concerned about the inaccuracy, he contacted the prosecuting attorney. He then corrected the document in handwriting directly on the application itself demonstrating no intent to deceive.