Christofferson Et Al. v. Washington

1969-02-24

Headline: Court denies review of a challenge to post‑hearing affidavits used to justify a search warrant, leaving lower‑court practice intact while critics warn it weakens safeguards for probable cause.

Holding: The Court denied the petition for review, leaving the lower court’s decision that post‑hearing affidavits may supply missing probable‑cause evidence for a warrant in place.

Real World Impact:

Leaves lower‑court practice of using after‑the‑fact affidavits intact in this case.
Raises concern that meaningful review of probable cause may be impaired.
Notes some States require contemporaneous records for warrant hearings.

Topics: search warrants, probable cause, police procedure, court review of warrants

Summary

Background

A group of people asked a court to review evidence seized under a search warrant after arguing the written complaint alone did not show enough probable cause. They moved to suppress the seized evidence. The State defended the warrant by filing affidavits from the judge who issued the warrant, the prosecuting attorney who sought it, and two police officers, which the lower court relied on to uphold probable cause. The Supreme Court denied review of that decision.

Reasoning

The key question raised was whether the Constitution requires a judge to make a permanent record of the evidence supporting a warrant at or before the time the warrant is issued. In a dissent, one Justice said relying on affidavits prepared after the fact risks impairing the right the Fourth Amendment creates and noted that several federal courts have rejected this after‑the‑fact procedure under court rules. The dissent pointed out that some States already require a contemporaneous record of what was presented to the issuing magistrate.

Real world impact

Because the Court denied review, the specific lower‑court ruling that post‑hearing affidavits supplied the missing evidence remains in place in this case. The decision does not set a national rule on the need for contemporaneous records, so practices may vary by State and court. The dissent warned that accepting after‑the‑fact records can make meaningful review of probable cause more difficult.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Brennan, joined by Justice Marshall, dissented and would have granted review, stressing a substantial constitutional issue and urging that proof be preserved in permanent form at or before warrant issuance.