Summary
The Supreme Court of Kentucky held that a search-warrant affidavit was technically deficient because it was sworn before a notary who lacked the written judicial authorization required by Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure 2.02 and 13.10. The court nevertheless affirmed the denial of suppression, concluding that the violation did not infringe constitutional rights, prejudice the defendant, or reflect deliberate disregard of the rules.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the affidavit supporting the search warrant failed to comply with RCr 2.02 and RCr 13.10 because the notary who administered the oath lacked a written judicial order authorizing her to administer oaths to complaining parties.
- Whether suppression is required when a criminal-procedure rule is violated but the violation does not infringe the defendant's constitutional rights.
- Whether suppression was warranted because the rule violation caused prejudice to Copley or resulted from deliberate disregard of the criminal-procedure rules.
Holdings
- The affidavit was technically deficient because the notary who administered the oath was not authorized by a written order of a judge of the county to administer oaths to complaining parties.
- Suppression may be warranted for a nonconstitutional violation of a criminal-procedure rule only if the defendant was prejudiced, in the sense that the search might not have occurred or might have been less abusive if the rule had been followed, or if there is evidence of deliberate disregard of the rule.
- Suppression was not warranted because the defective oath did not diminish Copley's constitutional rights, did not prejudice him, and was not the product of deliberate disregard of the rules.
Key quotations
“We now explicitly state that which was implied in earlier Kentucky cases, that is, when a criminal procedure rule is violated but the defendant’s constitutional rights are not affected, suppression may still be warranted if there is (1) prejudice to the defendant, in the sense that the search might not have occurred or been so abusive if the rule had been followed or (2) if there is evidence of deliberate disregard of the rule.” (907)
“Though the affidavit in support of the search warrant was not properly sworn before an individual authorized by a judge of the county to administer oaths pursuant to RCr 2.02, suppression was not warranted because the error was not of constitutional magnitude, the error did not prejudice Copley and there was no deliberate disregard of our rules.” (908)
Factual background
Deputy David Cain executed an affidavit for a warrant to search Copley's residence and swore it before Anita C. Hardy, a notary public who lacked a written judicial order authorizing her to administer oaths to complaining parties. Because no judge or trial commissioner was available, Circuit Court Clerk Tony D. Kerr reviewed the affidavit, found probable cause, and issued the warrant. Police executed the warrant and seized shell casings and blood swabs, and the parties stipulated that Hardy lacked the required authorization. The search otherwise complied with the warrant, which particularly described the place to be searched and the items to be seized.
Procedural history
A Russell Circuit Court denied Copley's motion to suppress, finding that the affidavit supporting the search warrant was not properly sworn under RCr 2.02 but that the violation was technical, nonprejudicial, and undertaken in good faith. Copley later pleaded guilty to murder and was sentenced to twenty years. The Supreme Court of Kentucky reviewed the suppression ruling and subsequent judgment and affirmed.