** I also know there are various kinds of Warrants, I am speaking of in this case at hand and of the possibility of Sealed records.** JMHO, we did not know what any of the documents until the May 3 filing of the SW that were filed that date. Not sure if had to do with the filing that date asking for an Opinion from the AG office or not. Hard to think those are the only SW Orders that have been issued in this case. JMHO Really doesn't matter if any we will see when we see. ... having said that I will say this and be done. See it when we see it.
First off, I DO realize that an APPLICATION AND AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF EVIDENTIARY SEARCH WARRANT and the actual EVIDENTIARY SEARCH WARRANT (ORDER) are 2 different Documents. I also know that you can not have an Evidentiary Search Warrant -ORDER without supporting documentation. CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE TITLE 1. CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CHAPTER 18. SEARCH WARRANTS says so.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CR/htm/CR.18.htm
If you look at any of the SW that have been released so far in this case, each SW ORDER incorporates/shows that the AFFIDAVIT is attached and therefore make this part of the SW. What would be the purpose of sealing the Page where the Judge signs the ORDER, (which he also signed all the other pages too) if sealing was due to one of the options given in that Art. 18.011. SEALING OF AFFIDAVIT?
EVIDENTIARY SEARCH WARRANT - using the ATT Target Number as an example. If this was something that MPD needed sealed for any of the reasons allowed in Art. 18.011. SEALING OF AFFIDAVIT, but as some seem to think only means the Affidavit, not the actual complete SW -Order (which is complete with the supporting documentation that the SW Order states is ATTACHED) :thinking: How would Sealing the Affidavit, yet Publishing the SW ORDER help? The SW ORDER has all the information requested. Taken directly from the Affidavit. That would make absolutely no sense, and defeats the whole purpose JMH
Document can be found on first page or in the Media Thread
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...T-gear-18-Apr-2016-29&p=12647631#post12647631
ANALYSIS
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/analysis/pdf/SB00244H.pdf
Senate Bill 244 provides that an attorney representing the state in the prosecution of felonies is
allowed to request a district judge or the judge of an appellate court to seal an affidavit presented
under Article 18.01(b), Code of Criminal Procedure. The judge is allowed to order the affidavit
sealed if the attorney establishes a compelling state interest in that the public disclosure of the
affidavit would jeopardize the safety of a victim, witness, or confidential informant or cause the
destruction of evidence, or that the affidavit contains information obtained from a court-ordered
wire-tap that has not expired at the time the state’s attorney requests the sealing of the affidavit.
The bill provides that an order sealing the affidavit expires on the 31st day after the date on which
the search warrant for which the affidavit was presented is executed, but the state’s attorney may
request and a judge may grant one 30-day extension of the original order if the request is made
before the first order expires and upon a new finding of compelling state interest. On the
expiration of either the original order or an extension, the bill states that the affidavit must be
unsealed.
S.B. 244 also provides that an order to seal an affidavit may not prohibit the disclosure of
information relating to the contents of a search warrant, the return of a search warrant, or the
inventory of property taken pursuant to a search warrant, or affect the right of a defendant to
discover the contents of an affidavit.
The bill amends Article 18.01(b), Code of Criminal Procedure, to except as provided by Article
18.011, Code of Criminal Procedure, that the affidavit is public information if executed.
Makes application of Article 18.01(b), Code of Criminal Procedure, as amended by this Act,
prospective.
