Min Ilm an Nasikh Wal Mansukh (Knowledge of the abrogating and the abrogated)
Electronic Search Warrants · Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013) Abrogated the Minnesota...
16
Electronic Search Warrants - - The Future is NOW Presented by: Honorable Peter Cahill, Fourth Judicial District Karen Jaszewski, Legal Counsel Division, State Court Administrator’s Office Bill Lemons, Minnesota County Attorneys Association Kent Therkelsen, Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension
Transcript of Electronic Search Warrants · Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013) Abrogated the Minnesota...
Electronic Search Warrants - - The Future is NOW
Presented by: Honorable Peter Cahill, Fourth Judicial District Karen Jaszewski, Legal Counsel Division, State Court Administrator’s Office Bill Lemons, Minnesota County Attorneys Association Kent Therkelsen, Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension
The Legal Landscape
Missouri v. McNeely (2013) McNeely was arrested for impaired driving
Officer read the implied consent advisory and McNeely refused a breath test
Missouri did not have a crime for refusing Officer took a blood sample without consent Supreme Court held that exigent circumstances
are determined by a “totality of the circumstances”
Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013)
Abrogated the Minnesota Supreme Court decision in Shriner, which had held that the dissipation of alcohol was a single factor exigency
In McNeely, the Court factored in advancements in technology that make it possible to obtain electronic search warrants
In McNeely, the Court focused on the intrusiveness of blood testing – puncturing the skin
The Aftermath – Birchfield, Bernard, and Beylund Brooks was remanded and decided by the
Minnesota Supreme Court Petition of Certiorari was filed in Bernard Court held: Breath test is a valid search incident
to arrest Blood test requires a search warrant Driver’s license can be revoked for refusing a
blood test, but cannot make it a crime
Court Decisions
North Dakota v. Birchfield, 136 S.Ct. 2160 (June 23, 2016).
State v. Trahan, 870 N.W.2d 396 (Minn. App. 2015).
State v. Thompson, 873 N.W.2d 873 (Minn. App. 2015).
Supreme Court Rules
Minnesota Supreme Court amended the Rules of Criminal Procedure in 2015. Rule 33.05(b) provides:
“Search warrants and supporting documents . . . . may be sent and signed electronically under a method approved by the State Court Administrator.”
Supreme Court Rules
In January 2016, Chief Justice Gildea issued an order to clarify the process for electronic search warrants: use of email and electronic signature clearly authorized.
August 1, 2016, the rules were amended again;
effective October 1, 2016. New Rule 37 governing written applications for search warrants.
Current eProcess: Call to alert the judge that an electronic search
warrant is coming by email, fax, etc. Judge administers oath by phone OR affidavit is
signed under oath and notarized If oath only, recording not required; if testimony
under oath – recording is required (Rule 36) Judge signs search warrant electronically and
emails back to officer This is the process until . . . .
Electronic Search Warrants in eCharging
User requests since start of eCharging
DWI appellate court rulings have increased law enforcement need to obtain search warrants
After hours
Time is of the essence
eCharging Goals
Reduce time and costs required to produce, approve, and exchange charging documents, incident reports , DWI forms and search warrants.
Reduce duplicate data entry. Increase data accuracy and consistency. Enable workflow management and visibility to
charging documents and DWI forms.
Expansion of eCharging
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Age
ncie
s D
eplo
yed
Total Agencies Deployed by Product
Complaints
DWI
Citation
Incident*2016 as of August 3rd
Expansion of eCharging
-
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
1,422 25,133
114,130
267,644
400,403
490,697 533,033
Total eCharging Documents Processed by Calendar Year
Electronic Search Warrant Features:
Added document type to existing eCharging Role based user rights Electronic Signing Seamless exchange of application and signed
warrant within one secure electronic system
Not included in Project: Court integration – Workflow ends with receipt
of judicially signed warrant
Project Timeline
Phase 1 – Development of the application for search warrant, focused on DWI
Phase 2 – Pilot the application – scheduled to begin in September 2016 in Hennepin County
Phase 3 – Support the pilot, develop chapter 626A warrant, prosecutorial review
Statewide roll-out – End of 1st quarter of 2017
Electronic Search Warrant
DEMONSTRATION
Thank you!
Any questions? Comments?
Contact: BCA: [email protected] Courts: [email protected] MCAA: [email protected]
