Short answer. Yes. Before issuing a search warrant, the judge must personally examine, in the form of searching questions and answers, in writing and under oath, the complainant and any witnesses he may produce, on facts personally known to them — and must attach their sworn statements and affidavits to the record.
What the law says
The judge must, before issuing the warrant, personally examine in the form of searching questions and answers, in writing and under oath, the complainant and the witnesses he may produce on facts personally known to them
Rule 126, Section 5 — Examination of complainant; record. Read the full provision →
Every word of the requirement is load-bearing
The rule commands that the judge must, before issuing the warrant, personally examine in the form of searching questions and answers, in writing and under oath, the complainant and the witnesses he may produce on facts personally known to them. Unpack it and the safeguards stack up: the examination is the judge's own act, not a clerk's; it happens before issuance, not after; it takes the form of searching questions and answers, not a signature on papers prepared elsewhere; it is reduced to writing and given under oath; and it probes facts the affiants personally know.
Why 'searching' and 'personally known' matter most
A search warrant authorises the State to enter a home or office — one of the most intrusive powers a court can unleash — so the rule refuses to let the judge act as a rubber stamp. Searching questions are the opposite of leading ones: the judge must probe, test and follow up, not simply have the applicant confirm a prepared script. And the facts must be personally known to the complainant and witnesses — rumour, suspicion and secondhand reports are exactly what a genuine examination is designed to expose. The examination is where probable cause is actually tested rather than merely asserted.
The paper trail is part of the rule
The provision closes with a documentary duty: the judge must attach to the record their sworn statements, together with the affidavits submitted. This is not housekeeping. Because the examination must be in writing, the record either contains the searching questions, the answers and the sworn statements — or it does not. That record is what makes later scrutiny possible: a person searched under the warrant can obtain the record and see for themselves whether the examination the rule demands actually took place, and whether it elicited personal knowledge or empty conclusions.
If you were searched under a questionable warrant
Have counsel secure the search warrant records from the issuing court: the application, the affidavits, and the written questions and answers of the judge's examination. Compare what happened against each element of the rule — personal examination by the judge, before issuance, searching questions, writing and oath, personal knowledge, attached statements. Where an element is missing, that defect goes to the validity of the warrant itself, and challenging the warrant is the route through which what was seized under it comes under attack. The rule's detail exists precisely so that compliance can be checked after the fact.