State v. Dragos
| Decision Date | 15 May 1973 |
| Docket Number | CA-CR,No. 1,1 |
| Citation | 20 Ariz.App. 14,509 P.2d 1051 |
| Parties | STATE of Arizona, Appellant, v. Theodore E. DRAGOS, Appellee. 520. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
G. Eugene Neil, Yavapai County Atty., and James B. Musgrove (Former Yavapai County Atty.) by Thomas R. McCowan, Deputy County Atty., Prescott, for appellant.
H. K. Wilhelmsen, Prescott, for appellee.
Pursuant to the provisions of A.R.S. § 13--1712, subsec. 7, the state has filed this appeal from the trial court's order granting the defendant's motion to suppress the use of certain evidence obtained in the execution of a search warrant.
Although defendant-appellee urges several bases in support of the trial court's granting of the motion to suppress, we deem it necessary to consider only the contention that the warrant was fatally defective because of its failure to describe in any way the property to be seized.
A.R.S. § 13--1443 provides as follows:
'No search warrant shall be issued except on probable cause, supported by affidavit, naming or describing the person, and Particularly describing the property to be seized and the place to be searched.' (Emphasis added).
Likewise, A.R.S. § 13--1445 provides that upon a finding of probable cause, a search warrant shall be issued 'for the items described', which:
'. . . shall be in substantially the following form:
'County of _ _, state of Arizona.
To any peace officer in the state of Arizona:
Proof by affidavit having been this day made before me by (naming every person whose affidavit has been taken) there is probable cause for believing that ( the grounds of the application) according to § 13--1442, you are therefore commanded in the daytime (or in the night, as the case may be, according to § 13--1447), to make a search of (naming persons, buildings, premises or vehicles, describing each with reasonable particularity) For the following property or things: (describing such with reasonable particularity), and if you find such or any part thereof, to retain such in your custody subject to § 13--1450.
Given under my hand or direction and dated this _ _ day of _ _, 19_ _ (judge, justice of the peace, or magistrate.) " (Emphasis added.)
Although the Arizona constitution does not appear to have any provisions expressly detailing search warrant requirements, the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that:
'. . . no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and Particularly describing the place to be searched, and The persons or Things to be seized.' (Emphasis added).
As previously stated, the search warrant in question entirely omitted any reference to, or description of,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Taylor
...(D.Colo.1970), aff'd, 445 F.2d 1100 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 993, 92 S.Ct. 541, 30 L.Ed.2d 545 (1971); State v. Dragos, 20 Ariz.App. 14, 15, 509 P.2d 1051 (1973); Bloom v. State, 283 So.2d 134, 135-136 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1973); State v. Corbin, 419 A.2d 362, 363 (Me.1980); Frey v. ......
-
Brock v. State
...Application of Lafayette Academy, Inc., supra, 610 F.2d 1; Bloom v. State, 283 So.2d 134 (Fla.App.1973); and State v. Dragos, 20 Ariz.App. 14, 509 P.2d 1051 (Ariz.App.1973), where the exception was noted but not applied because there was no incorporation or See also United States v. Thompso......
-
State v. Kerr
...contends that the motion to suppress should have been granted because the warrant lacked specificity, relying upon State v. Dragos, 20 Ariz.App. 14, 509 P.2d 1051 (1973). We do not accept defendant's argument. A presumption exists in favor of the validity of search warrants. State v. Superi......
-
State v. Lewis
...Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U.S. 981, 988 n.5 (1984); Berger v. State of N.Y., 388 U.S. 41, 54-55 (1967); State v. Dragos, 20 Ariz. App. 14, 15, 509 P.2d 1051, 1052 (1973); see alsoA.R.S. § 13-3915(C) (requiring warrant to include description of "person, building, premises or vehicle" to......