Issuance of warrant.
If the magistrate is thereupon satisfied of the existence of the grounds of the application, or that there is probable cause to believe their existence, he must issue a search warrant, signed by him with his name of office, to a peace officer in his county, commanding him forthwith to search the person or place named, for the property specified, and to bring it before the magistrate.
If the affidavit for the warrant is related to the court telephonically, the magistrate may verbally authorize a peace officer to sign the magistrate’s name on a duplicate original warrant, which verbal authorization shall be recorded and transcribed. After service of the warrant, this duplicate original warrant must be returned to the magistrate who authorized the signing of his name on it. The magistrate shall then endorse his name and enter the date on the warrant when it is returned to him. Any failure of the magistrate to make such an endorsement does not in itself invalidate the warrant.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases, 1996–2017 · leading case:
State v. Zueger, 152 P.3d 8 (Idaho 2006).
State v. Zueger, 152 P.3d 8 (Idaho 2006).
· cites it 34× “It also alleged error in suppressing the evidence for lack of a warrant application transcript, arguing there was no due process violation in the failure to prepare a transcript prior to the hearing on the motion to suppress.”
State v. Victor Garcia-Rodriguez, 396 P.3d 700 (Idaho 2017).
· cites it 2× “The Idaho Supreme Court held that this error did not constitute a constitutional violation, stating: In order to rise to the level of a constitutional violation, there must be a defect which calls into question the Constitution’s requirement of a finding of probable cause to…”
State v. Mathews, 934 P.2d 931 (Idaho 1997).
· cites it 12× “Idaho Code § 19-4406 requires the signature of the judge also: Issuance of warrant.”
State v. Leotis B. Branigh, III, 313 P.3d 732 (Idaho Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “The Idaho Supreme Court held that this error did not constitute a constitutional violation, stating: In order to rise to the level of a constitutional violation, there must be a defect which calls into question the Constitution’s requirement of a finding of probable cause to…”
State v. Pruss, 181 P.3d 1231 (Idaho 2008).
· cites it 2× “Relying upon Idaho Code § 58-312 , 4 the State argues that Pruss did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy because he was a squatter 5 and trespasser on state land.”
State v. Hagedorn, 922 P.2d 1081 (Idaho Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 2× “§ 19-4415, which requires that a warrant be returned “forthwith,” and I.C. § 19-4406, which mandates that the items seized be brought before the court.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.