TO STUDY THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND TO GATHER SUFFICIENT INFORMATION CONCERNING THE PROPOSED TELEPHONE WARRANT PROCEDURE, THE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE HEARD TESTIMONY FROM PERSONS FAMILIAR WITH THE TELEPHONE WARRANT PROCEDURE USED IN CALIFORNIA. THE SUBCOMMITTEE DESIRED TO LEARN OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO ALLOW THE ISSUANCE OF SEARCH WARRANTS BASED ON PROBABLE CAUSE TO BE COMMUNICATED ORALLY BY A MAGISTRATE, AND TO ALLOW THE MAGISTRATE VERBALLY TO AUTHORIZE THE REQUESTING OFFICER TO SIGN THE NAME OF THE MAGISTRATE TO THE WARRANT. THE TESTIMONY OF THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA NOTED THAT NEITHER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES NOR THAT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA MANDATE THE PRESENTATION OF A WRITTEN AFFADAVIT AS A PREREQUISITE TO THE ISSUANCE OF A SEARCH WARRANT, ALTHOUGH ADEQUATE JUDICIAL CONTROL ALWAYS MUST BE EXERCISED OVER THE WARRANT PROCEDURE. REPRESENTATIVE WIGGINS STATED THAT THE MAJOR JUSTIFICATION FOR THE ORAL SEARCH WARRANT IS THAT IT MAKES A WARRANT MORE EASILY OBTAINABLE, AND HENCE MORE ENTRIES WILL BE MADE PURSUANT TO A WARRANT, RATHER THAN TO SOME OTHER CLAIMED JUSTIFICATION. SUCH A POLICY MAY, HOWEVER, BE LIMITED BY THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN RESTRICTING THE USE OF SUCH WARRANTS TO EMERGENCY SITUATIONS IN WHICH CONTRABAND LIKELY WOULD BE DESTROYED BUT FOR ITS RAPID SEIZURE. FURTHER DISCUSSION INVOLVED THE RELEVANT CASE LAW, PARTICULARLY THE CALIFORNIA CASES OF PEOPLE V. PECK (1974) AND PEOPLE V. CHAVEZ (1972) WHICH SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ISSUANCE OF WARRANTS ON ORAL TESTIMONY. APPENDED MATERIALS CONSIST OF A MONOGRAPH BY THE SAN DIEGO DISTRICT ATTORNEY, THE STATUTORY PROPOSALS SUBMITTED TO THE CONGRESS, AND THE APPROVED LEGISLATION. (TWK)