Search warrants for occupied dwellings shall be served between the hours of six o’clock a.m. and ten o’clock p.m., inclusive, unless the judge finds the existence of at least one of the following circumstances: 1. The evidence or person is located on the premises only between the hours of ten o’clock p.m. and six o’clock a.m.; 2. The search to be performed is a crime scene search; 3. The affidavits are positive that the property is on the person or in the place to be searched and the judge finds that there is likelihood that the property named in the search warrant will be destroyed, moved or concealed; or 4. The search to be performed is a search for evidence relating to the illegal manufacture of methamphetamine or other controlled dangerous substance. If any of the above criteria are met the judge may insert a direction that the warrant be served at any time of the day or night. Search warrants for sites other than occupied dwellings may be served at any time of the day or night without a special direction. R.L. 1910, § 6068. Amended by Laws 1971, c. 120, § 3, emerg. eff. May 3, 1971; Laws 1990, c. 148, § 2, emerg. eff. May 1, 1990; Laws 1996, c. 15, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 1996; Laws 2005, c. 353, § 1, eff. Nov. 1, 2005; Laws 2024, c. 39, § 5, eff. Nov. 1, 2024. NOTE: Laws 2005, c. 426, § 3 repealed by Laws 2006, c. 16, § 5, emerg. eff. March 29, 2006.
Notes of Decisions
United States v. Barrett, 496 F.3d 1079 (10th Cir. 2007).
· cites it 4× “5 Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 1230. Barrett focuses exclusively on the third such exception, which encompasses cases in which the affiants are “positive that the property is .”
Jones v. State, 2006 OK CR 5, 128 P.3d 521.
· cites it 3× “¶ 23 Jones filed a motion to suppress all the evidence prior to trial, arguing the affidavit for search warrant lacked probable cause, night-time authorization was improper under 22 O.S.Supp.1999, § 1230, and the night-time search was improper.”
Fletcher v. State, 735 P.2d 1190 (Okla. Crim. App. 1987).
· cites it 5× “In his application of this statute, the magistrate made the following conclusions of law and findings of fact: Title 22 O.S. § 1230 was amended to require a specific finding by the magistrate `that there is likelihood that the property named in the search warrant will be…”
Young v. State, 1998 OK CR 62, 992 P.2d 332.
· cites it 2× “22 O.S.1991, § 1230; State v. Stafford, 1992 OK CR 47, ¶ 3 , 845 P.”
DARITY v. State, 2009 OK CR 27, 220 P.3d 731.
· cites it 2× “[1] Courts have opened a Pandora's box by sanctioning police lies.”
Solis-Avila v. State, 830 P.2d 191 (Okla. Crim. App. 1992).
· cites it 4× “We agree with trial court that the nighttime execution of the search warrant was improper for there was no showing that the evidence would be moved, destroyed, or concealed as required by 22 O.S.Supp. 1990, § 1230. See Wiggin v. State, 755 P.”
United States v. Randle, 196 F. App'x 676 (10th Cir. 2006).
· cites it 3× “First, he claims that the search warrant was issued in violation of Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1230 , which proscribes nighttime searches except under certain narrow circumstances.”
Dickerson v. State, 414 So. 2d 998 (Ala. Crim. App. 1982).
“§ 13-1447 (1970) amended, § 13-3917 (1978); Idaho Code § 19-4411 (1979); Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 1230 (1971); Utah Code Ann.”
Wiggin v. State, 755 P.2d 115 (Okla. Crim. App. 1988).
· cites it 2× “As his second and third propositions, appellant argues that the affidavit was insufficient to allow nighttime service under 22 O.S.1981, § 1230 and that nighttime service of the search warrant was improper.”
Campbell v. State, 651 P.2d 696 (Okla. Crim. App. 1982).
· cites it 2× “* The judge’s exercise of discretion in allowing the search warrant to be served day or night was in accord with 22 O.S.1981, § 1230. The defendants also maintain that twenty-five (25) items not named in the search warrant, but seized at the time of the search, were improperly…”
Filgueras v. State, 668 P.2d 1172 (Okla. Crim. App. 1983).
“22 O.S.1981, § 1230 states: The judge shall insert a direction in the warrant that it be served in the daytime, unless the affidavits be positive that the property is on the person, or in the place to be searched, and the judge finds that there is likelihood that the property…”
Kay v. State, 668 P.2d 1150 (Okla. Crim. App. 1983).
“Relying on 22 O.S.1981, § 1230. The appellant argues that the affidavit did not indicate that the marijuana would be quickly destroyed, moved or concealed and therefore, the judge could only direct the officers to serve the warrant during the daytime.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1230(3): 1 case
United States v. Barrett, 496 F.3d 1079 (10th Cir. 2007).
“5 Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 1230. Barrett focuses exclusively on the third such exception, which encompasses cases in which the affiants are “positive that the property is .”
Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 1230(4): 1 case
United States v. Barrett, 496 F.3d 1079 (10th Cir. 2007).
“5 Okla. Stat. tit. 22 § 1230. Barrett focuses exclusively on the third such exception, which encompasses cases in which the affiants are “positive that the property is .”
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.