Deveaux court held that “the time of issuance was a technical irregularity which did not affect defendant’s substantial rights.” Id. The court explained that the defendant’s constitutional rights were not violated or disturbed where, inter alia, the officer’s complaint for a search warrant was supported by an affidavit describing the place to be searched and the person and things to be seized, the defendant made no claim that the warrant lacked probable cause, and the officer executed the search after obtaining the warrant. Id. Finally, in Montana, which has a standalone constitutional provision recognizing the right to individual privacy, the misdating of a search warrant will not necessarily render the warrant invalid. See State v. Steffes, 269 Mont. 214, 887 P.2d 1196, 1210 (1994) (<HOLDING>). In sum, the clerical error in the instant
holding that evidence obtained from a search made subsequent to an illegal stop was admissible when before the search the police officer discovered that there was an outstanding arrest warrant for the defendant and the defendant was thereupon arrested pursuant to that warrant holding that where the search warrant was misdated june 19 1991 and was executed on june 18 1991 the misdating was merely technical and did not affect the substantial rights of the defendant holding that if trial courts verdict was based on hearsay statements of victim admitted in violation of the confrontation clause the error clearly would not only affect substantial rights but would seriously affect the fairness and integrity of the proceedings holding unconstitutional a search executed on a warrant that failed to list with particularity the items to be seized even where the supporting application contained such a list and the warrant was approved by a magistrate holding that the failure to properly caption and verify a petition did not affect the substantial rights of the parties