WY approves of telephonic or other remotely applied for SWs

Wyoming concludes that a telephonic or other remotely applied for search warrant [via Skype, for example?] is valid if there is a recording made that can be transcribed for preservation of the showing of probable cause. Smith v. State, 2013 WY 122, 2013 Wyo. LEXIS 127 (October 4, 2013):

[*P25] Historically, an affidavit was a “written” instrument. We do not believe that the statute or this opinion changes that fact. What has changed over time, because of technological advances, is the meaning of the word “written.” Recorded sworn testimony, which if preserved, and from which a transcript may be produced, is as much a “writing” in today’s world as was a quill-penned line on a piece of parchment two centuries ago. To conclude otherwise would ignore today’s technological realities, and would place form over substance. We decline to view the law in so restrictive a fashion.

[*P26] We answer the first certified question in the affirmative. That is, the procedures set forth in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 31-6-102(d) do comply with the affidavit requirements of Wyo. Const. art. 1, § 4.

W.R.Cr.P. 41(c)

[*P27] A remotely communicated search warrant issued pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 31-6-102(d) is distinguishable from other search warrants in that it is limited to a particular type of evidence gathering in a particular type of crime. By its own language, it is “valid only for purposes specified in this subsection.” At the same time, there is nothing about the context in which it is issued that requires it to be treated differently than any other search warrant in the particulars governed by W.R.Cr.P. 41(c). A close reading of W.R.Cr.P. 41(c) reveals that it contains no provision that cannot be met in the issuance of a remotely communicated search warrant under the statute. Paraphrasing the rule, we note that, in addition to the affidavit requirement, which has been discussed above, W.R.Cr.P. 41(c) provides that (1) the issuing officer may require the affiant to appear personally; (2) the warrant must with particularity identify the property or person to be seized and or searched; (3) a record of the proceedings be made by a court reporter or recording equipment; (4) the warrant be directed to an officer authorized to enforce or assist in enforcing state law; (5) the grounds for probable cause for the warrant’s issuance and the names of the persons supplying affidavits be stated in the warrant; (6) the search of the named person or place be conducted within a specific period of time not to exceed ten days; (7) the warrant be served between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., unless the issuing authority provides otherwise in the warrant based upon reasonable cause; and (8) the warrant shall designate the judicial officer to whom the warrant shall be returned.

[*P28] Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 31-6-102(d) and W.R.Cr.P. 41(c) complement, rather than contradict, one another. There is no reason that an officer seeking a remotely communicated search warrant under the statute cannot also comply with the rule. The same is true of the issuing judicial officer. In fact, there are procedural protections in W.R.Cr.P. 41(c) that would seem to have particular application in the context of a telephonically obtained search warrant. For instance, inasmuch as the record is being made electronically, rather than on paper, it is likely that no transcription thereof will be available at the time the warrant is served, meaning that the subject of the warrant would not know the reasons for the judicial officer’s finding, or the scope of the warrant, unless the probable cause finding is contained within the warrant.

[*P29] We answer the second certified question in the affirmative. That is, a remotely communicated search warrant issued pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 31-6-102(d) must comply with the provisions of W.R.Cr.P. 41(c).

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.