Thursday, May 8, 2003 | 10:10 a.m.
CARSON CITY -- Law enforcement officials told an Assembly panel Wednesday that a recent Nevada Supreme Court ruling has made it more difficult to serve search warrants on suspected criminals. They asked the Assembly Judiciary Committee to pass Senate Bill 316, which would ease the rules on serving the warrants.
Defense attorneys said the opinion issued in December in State vs. Allen was simply being misinterpreted by the prosecution and urged the committee not to approve the bill.
SB316 would state that an affidavit is not required to be attached to a search warrant left at the place searched and that law enforcement has up to 10 days after the search to file an affidavit with the court justifying the search.
Ben Graham, a lobbyist for the Clark County district attorney's office, said police now must attach a list of confidential informants and witnesses to the copy of the search warrant served to a suspect.
"The lists of witnesses were being revealed to -- for the lack of a better term -- the bad guy," Graham said.
James Jackson, a lobbyist for Nevada Attorneys for Criminal Justice, disagreed, saying, "Frankly, I think that the Allen case is being misread."
The opinion, issued Dec. 19, 2002, involved a deputy sheriff in Humboldt County who did not have a statement of probable cause with a search warrant served at the home of a drug suspect.
The suspect asked to suppress the evidence found at her home because no probable cause was stated. During a hearing in district court the deputy testified there was no probable cause in his affidavit.
The court ruled in the suspect's favor, but the case was appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court.
The high court affirmed the district court's decision and said that current law was "not ambiguous."
The court gave law enforcement two options under current law. They can make a statement of probable cause and state the names of the people whose affidavits have been taken, or they can make reference to the affidavits and note that they are on file, without revealing the names.
Prosecutors argued they had no choice but to attach the affidavit. Jack Bullock, the former Humboldt County district attorney who litigated the Allen case, who is now a defense attorney, said law enforcement is simply skirting the law by not putting the probable cause on the warrant.
Backing the defense attorneys' position, Bullock said, "I believe this is designed to take away more rights of our citizens. It seems clear to me that every time the Supreme Court rules against the prosecution, the District Attorney's Association runs to the Legislature to seek a correction of that ruling."
The committee took no action on the bill Wednesday.
Assemblyman John Carpenter, R-Elko, said he wanted to talk with some of the rural prosecutors to see if -- as Bullock had stated -- they agreed with Bullock's position.4
archive
