A Magistrates Violation of the Rules of Criminal Procedure Does Not Warrant Suppression

Utah v. Dominguez, 2011 UT 11 (Utah Supreme Court, March 1, 2011).

Dominguez was arrested for DUI, and the officer obtained a warrant for a blood draw.  However, the magistrate that approved the warrant failed to retain a copy of the original warrant as required by Rule 40 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.  The Court of Appeals overturned the trial court ordering suppression of the evidence.

The Supreme Court found that the judge that approved the warrant did indeed violate Rule 40. However, because the Defendant failed to demonstrate how the violation of Rule 40 infringed upon a substantial right, it did not warrant the harsh remedy of suppression.  Suppression is a remedy reserved for instances in which suppression would discourage officers from constitutional rights of citizens.  Because in this case, the officer obtained a warrant in compliance with the constitution, the remedy of suppression would serve no deterrent effect and as such is an inappropriate remedy for the magistrates violation of Rule 40.  Court of Appeals Reversed (Trial Court Affirmed).

Full Decision available at http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopin/Dominguez030111.pdf