Estimated read time: 2-3 minutes
This archived news story is available only for your personal, non-commercial use. Information in the story may be outdated or superseded by additional information. Reading or replaying the story in its archived form does not constitute a republication of the story.
SALT LAKE CITY (AP) -- To "ensure integrity" of the justice system, the Utah Supreme Court ordered all courts Friday to retain copies of search warrants and affidavits after it took five months for a man to learn why Provo police forcefully entered his home.
If police have sole custody of records, it raises the possibility that documents can be mishandled or "even altered without detection," the court said in a unanimous decision.
"In the matter of warrants for the search and seizure of persons or property more is required," the court said.
The Supreme Court ruled against the 4th District Court, which covers Utah, Juab, Millard and Wasatch counties, but the order covers all state courts.
In October 2004, Provo police used force to enter the home of Brian R. Anderson. They showed him the warrant but didn't explain why they were searching.
Four days later, he visited the court clerk's office to see the affidavit used to justify the search. Anderson was told the court had no copies.
The clerk's office said it typically doesn't get documents until police decide to report what they took during a search.
Anderson finally saw the documents in March 2005 -- five months after the incident and 10 days after inviting the Supreme Court to take a look at his case.
Lawyers for the 4th District asked that the lawsuit be dismissed, claiming it was moot when Anderson got what he wanted. The Supreme Court, however, refused to step aside.
"Because the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is a right guaranteed by the United States and Utah constitutions, maintaining that right is a public interest of the highest order," the court said in an opinion written by Justice Jill Parrish.
The 4th District's policy of waiting for police to file search-related documents makes sense "only if we may confidently assume that law enforcement always acts with complete honesty, integrity and competence," the court said.
Anderson was never charged with a crime. His attorney, Brian Barnard, said police were investigating for drugs after checking his trash. The trash, however, belonged to someone who was living in a trailer on the property.
"There should not be a blanket embargo on these affidavits. It's such a simple matter," Barnard said. "Ninety-nine times out of 100, search warrants are signed in the courthouse during daylight hours. All they have to do is make a copy.
"Somehow that was considered to be too much of a burden on a police officer or a court clerk," he said.
James Taylor, presiding judge in the 4th District, could not immediately be reached for comment. Barnard said the problem is not limited to that district.
"Our Constitution deserves better, and our citizenry deserve better, than what our judges have been giving us," he said.
(Copyright 2006 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
