Sup. Ct. R. D.C. 41
COMMENT TO 2017 AMENDMENTS
Subsection (d)(2)(A) of this rule has been amended to recite the things which may be contained in a warrant application before the itemized list of things that must be included. No change of substance is intended. Subsections have been renumbered accordingly.
In terms identical to the federal rule, subsection (d)(2)(C)(ii) of this rule permits a judge to accept sworn testimony, which must be recorded, in person rather than or in addition to in writing, if it is reasonable to do so. Subsection (d)(2)(D), like its federal counterpart, refers to the new Rule 4.1 (Complaint, Warrant, or Summons by Telephone or Other Reliable Electronic Means) and permits search warrants to be sought and approved by reliable electronic means. The amendment is identical to the 2011 amendment to the federal rule.
Subsection (e)(2) of this rule is new and is substantially identical to its federal counterpart, as amended in 2009. As explained more fully in the Advisory Committee Notes to that amendment, computers and other electronic storage media commonly contain such large amounts of information that it is often impractical for law enforcement to review all of the information during execution of the warrant at the search location. This rule acknowledges the need for a two-step process: officers may seize or copy the entire storage medium and review it later to determine what electronically stored information falls within the scope of the warrant.
The last two sentences of subsection (f)(5) of this rule are identical to subsection (f)(l)(B) of the federal rule, as amended in 2009. As explained in the Advisory Committee Note to the 2009 federal amendment:
The [former] rule [did] not address the question of whether the inventory should include a description of the electronically stored information contained in the media seized. Where it is impractical to record a description of the electronically stored information at the scene, the inventory may list the physical storage media seized. Recording a description of the electronically stored information at the scene is likely to be the exception, and not the rule, given the large amounts of information contained on electronic storage media and the impracticality for law enforcement to image and review all of the information during the execution of the warrant. This is consistent with practice in the "paper world." In circumstances where filing cabinets of documents are seized, routine practice is to list the storage devices, i.e., the cabinets, on the inventory, as opposed to making a document by document list of the contents.
Subsection (f)(7) has been amended, in terms identical to the federal rule, to permit an officer to return a search warrant by reliable electronic means.
COMMENT TO 2016 AMENDMENTS
This rule has been redrafted to conform to the general restyling of the federal rules in 2002. It differs from the federal rule in several respects.
Paragraph (a) excludes definitions that are not applicable to Superior Court practice.
Paragraph (b) omits language dealing with the authority of certain judges and federal magistrates to issue search warrants.
Subparagraph (d)(1) retains the language of the former rule regarding the use of hearsay to support probable cause. The language was removed from the federal rule as unnecessary, in part because this principle is addressed in Federal Rule of Evidence 1101. Because this jurisdiction has not adopted the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Superior Court rule did not follow this change.
Subparagraphs (d)(2)-(4) retain the language of paragraph (c) of the former rule.
Paragraph (e) retains the language of paragraph (d) of the former rule, and is analogous to Federal Rule 41(e)(2). Its provisions conform to D.C. Code § 23-521 et seq. (2012 Repl.). Subparagraph (e)(5) has been added to make explicit that a search warrant for controlled substances must contain a direction that it may be served at any time of day or night. See D.C. Code § 48-921.02(h) (2014 Repl.).
Subparagraphs (f)(1)-(3), which have no federal counterpart, retain the language of subparagraphs (e)(1)-(3) of the former rule. Subparagraph (f)(3) cites 18 U.S.C. § 3109 (the federal "knock and announce" statute), which is made applicable by D.C. Code § 23-524(a) (2012 Repl.).