|
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 />
|