Laserfiche WebLink
Judges and judicial officers are cautioned to avoid engaging in any <br />preliminary unrecorded and unswom conversation with the officer or <br />prosecutor. See ABA Guidelines for the Issuance of Search Warrants, <br />Guideline 11(3) (1990). <br />In order to complete the record, the recorded oral testimony must be <br />transcribed, the transcript reviewed by the judge or judicial officer to <br />insure Its accuracy, and the transcript filed. This is a requirement of <br />Fed.R.Crim.P. 41 (c)(2)(D) and most state statutes and rules which <br />permit oral warrants. If the recording is done by the applicant rather <br />than thejudge orjudicial officer, the applicant must provide the tape or <br />other original record to the issuing judge or judicial officer as soon as <br />practical so that the judge or judicial officer will be able to have the <br />transcript timely prepared and filed as required by the rule. <br />Pursuant to Rule 36.05 the judge or judicial officer may issue the <br />warrant only after assuring that reasonable circumstances exist for the <br />use of the oral warrant process, that the application is otherwise in <br />conformity with law, and that probable cause exists for the issuance of <br />the warrant. The officer and the judge orjudicial officer must keep in <br />mind that in addition to the special requirements for issuance of an oral <br />warrant, all other requirements for the issuance of a warrant must also <br />be met. See Minn. Star. §§ 626.05 -.17 (1992). Once these require- <br />ments are met, the judge orjudicial officer may authorize the officer to <br />sign the name of the judge or judicial officer to the duplicate original <br />warrant. Rule 36.05 also requires that thejudge orjudicial officer note <br />the exact time the original warrant issigned. <br />In ruling on the oral warrant application, it is strongly suggested that <br />the judge orjudicial officer state on the record whether probable cause <br />exists, what premises or person may be searched under the warrant, <br />and highlight any differences between the authority requested and that <br />granted, The judge or judicial officer should also identify what items <br />may be searched for under the warrant and indicate whether the request <br />has been modified or limited: See ABA Guidelines forthe Issuance of <br />Search Warrants, Guideline 11(12) (1990). <br />Rule 36.06 mandates filing under the provisionsof Rule 33.04, which <br />contains special provisions for filing warrants and related documents. <br />The judge or judicial officer is responsible for seeing that the certified <br />transcript, any longhand verbatim record, and the original warrant are <br />filed. Additionally, Rule 36.06 requires that if the record was made <br />using a tape recorder, the original_ tape be filed as well. If any other <br />form of electronic recording device is utilized, the medium upon which <br />that record is made must also be filed. This requirement ensures the <br />accuracy of the oral warrant record and emphasizes a principal concern <br />of this process, that the oral submission be as reviewable after the fact <br />as traditional affidavits. <br />Rules 36.07 and 36.08 also emphasize that the oral warrant process <br />must observe all the formalities of the conventional warrant process. <br />All concerned are cautioned that the circumstances that permit the use <br />of the oral warrant process do not justify -any other departures from <br />traditional warrant law and practice. The additional requirement in <br />Rule 36.08 that the person executing the warrant enter the time of <br />execution on the duplicate original warrant is modeled on <br />Fed,R.Crim.P. 41(cX2)(F), Rule 36 does not specify sanction for <br />violation of the various procedural requirements of the rule. That is left <br />to caselaw development." <br />77. Farms. <br />Amend the Introductory Statement to the Criminal Forms following <br />the rules to read as follows: <br />"The following forms are <br />limited in number. No attempt is made to furnish a complete manual <br />of forms. For all complaints charging a misdemeanor offense the <br />prosecuting attorney, judge, judicial officer or clerk of court <br />authorized to issue process shall use the appropriate form as set <br />forth in the following criminal forms or a form substantially in <br />compliance with these forms. The other forms provided herein are <br />not mandatory, but shall be accepted by the court if offered by any <br />party or counsel for their designated purpose." <br />78. Forms. <br />Amend the Introductory Statement to the Criminal Forms by adding <br />the following comment <br />"Comment <br />The Final Report of the Minnesota Supreme Coun Task Force u„ <br />Racial Bias in the Judicial System (1993) recommends that all judicial <br />forms and documents be drafted in easily translatable English, and be <br />translated by approved legal translators into such additional languages <br />as the State Court Administrator approves. It is recommended that any <br />criminal forms that are translated consist of both English and the <br />additional language." <br />COURT OF APPEALS <br />FILED MARCH 8,1994 <br />Washington County " <br />' . Davies, Judge <br />District Court File No C199222 <br />Suzanne <br />Jon & Kroschel, et al., <br />�(; Flinch S <br />3346 Soo. Trafing / ost Tr. <br />Appellants, <br />Afton, MN 55001• <br />Nicholas Mucciacciaro, -'. <br />Jon Erik Kingstad � • <br />St. Croix Law Center <br />Appellant, . <br />310 South St. Croix Trail <br />Lakeland, MN 55043 <br />VS. .. <br />t <br />The City of Arlon, <br />-.. Pierre N. Regnier <br />.. <br />::.Marsha Eldot Devine <br />Respondent, .. <br />. <br />Jardine, Logan & O'Brien - - <br />.•--i,:. <br />2100 Mentor Tower -. <br />444 Cedar Street <br />St. Paul, MN 55101 .. <br />The League of Minnesota <br />-, Richard B. Allyn <br />Cities Insurance Trust, <br />M. Gregory Simpson <br />Robin, Kaplan, Miller & Cvesi <br />Respondent. <br />2800 LaSalle Plaza <br />800 LaSalle Avenue <br />Minneapolis, MN 55402-2015 <br />Filed March S, 1994 <br />Office of Appellate Courts <br />SYLLABUS <br />I. A city does not have a duty under Minn. Stat. § 466.07 (1990) <br />to reimburse Its mayor and city council members for costs and <br />attorney fees incurred to defend an alleged violation of the Min- <br />nesota Open Meeting Law. <br />11..A city may reimburse its mayor and city council members <br />pursuant to Minn. Star. § 465.76 (1990) for costs and attorney fees <br />incurred to defend an action alleging a violation of the open meeting <br />law, <br />III. Pursuant to the tears of the covenant issued by the Minnesota <br />League of Cities InsuranceTrnt, it must defend, or must reimburse <br />for costs and attorney fees incurred to defend, an action alleginf <br />violation of.the open meeting law. <br />Affirmed in part, reversed In part, and remanded. <br />Considered and decided by Davies, Presiding Judge, Kalitowsld, <br />Judge, and Fleming, Judge. <br />Retired judge of the district court, serving as judge of the Minnesota <br />Court of Appeals by appointment pursuant to Minn. Coast art. Vl, § 10. <br />OPINION <br />nA VTVC T:,.1 �.... T-. -r. I--- i,:_._: _..._ .. . <br />