Blog Layout

Is Verbal Authorization From a Judge Enough to Search a Second Location?

Jason Louis • Apr 24, 2024
Is Verbal Authorization From a Judge Enough to Search a Second Location?

This post is only offered as a discussion topic and does not represent legal advice. Officers must refer to the laws in their own State as well as their agency

Consider this Scenario: Officers obtained a valid search warrant for a motel room. After the warrant was signed by the judge, they decided they wanted to search the suspect’s home. The Police Officer called the judge, who verbally authorized a search of the second location. The officers didn’t physically amend the warrant.


Question: Is the oral authorization from the judge, without physically amending the warrant, sufficient to allow the search of the second location?


Here’s what the 9th Circuit said on August 30, 2022:


"While a judge had orally approved the search of the home, the text of the Fourth Amendment still requires the warrant to specify the place to be searched."


"...it was not clearly established at the time that the search would violate the Fourth Amendment. An officer could have believed- based on the lack of direct case law at the time- that he or she could search the home because the court had orally approved the search, even if the officer failed to make that change on the warrant."


"Here, (the officers’) conduct violated a Fourth Amendment right that was not clearly established at the time of the violation."


Qualified immunity was granted because no case law covered this issue at the time. Moving forward, officers must know to physically amend the warrant themselves before serving it, even if a judge verbally authorizes expanding the search scope. Personally, I would just ask the judge to sign an updated warrant.

The Briefing Room has a short training video available on this exact scenario so agency supervisors can easily train every officer in your agency on this essential topic.

www.TheBriefingRoom.com 
90-Second Training Videos Your Supervisors Use During Briefing or Roll Call To Develop High-Performing Teams of Officers.
✅ Lower Liability
✅ Retain Officers
✅ Build Community Support


🌟 Produced Exclusively by Active-Duty Law Enforcement Instructors 🌟


By Jason Louis 05 May, 2024
Scott v. Harris is a United States Supreme Court Case about using deadly force to stop a fleeing vehicle. But, an often overlooked part of Scott v Harris is the fact that it was the first time video was used by the court to determine if qualified immunity or summary judgment should be granted. In its finding of that case, the court said, “When opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment.” That finding has found its way into many cases since it was made. In the case of Coble v. City of White House, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals said, “Nothing in the Scott analysis suggests that it should be restricted to cases involving videotapes.” They noted that the Scott ruling was about “the record,” not just videos. This is important to officers because body camera footage is part of the record and may be used in court when deciding if a Police Officer should be granted summary judgment or qualified immunity. There have been many cases recently where body camera footage was used in the court’s analysis. The 9th Circuit Case Hernandez v. Town of Gilbert from 2021 is one example of body camera footage blatantly contradicting the suspect’s testimony and supporting the officer’s actions. During the arguments for that case, the attorney for the side suing the officers wasn't telling the truth about what happened. For this reason, officers should turn their body cameras on and leave them running throughout every incident. Police officers shouldn't put themselves in a situation where someone can make false allegations against them, and that officer have no evidence to disprove them.
By Jason Louis 03 May, 2024
With all the political divisiveness in our society, officers can occasionally get pulled into sensitive political situations while working patrol. One of these situations can be when a Police Officer gets a call of protesters disrupting a city council meeting. These can be difficult calls to handle because officer want to protect our citizens' rights to protest, but also need to protect the city government's right to hold public meetings without disruption.
By Jason Louis 27 Apr, 2024
While working at a DUI checkpoint, an officer is assigned to request a valid driver's license from drivers when they're stopped. However, one man in a vehicle tells the officer he won't provide his driver's license because there is no reasonable suspicion that he committed a crime, and the 4th Amendment protects his right to refuse. Can the Police Officer demand and ultimately arrest the man if he refuses to provide his driver's license?
More Posts
Share by: