State v. Gutierrez-Perez

Summary

The Utah Supreme Court held that an electronic warrant application for a blood draw satisfied the United States and Utah constitutional requirement that a warrant be supported by an oath or affirmation. The court concluded that the officer’s declaration under criminal penalty that the statement was true and correct constituted a valid affirmation, despite the absence of a notarized signature, jurat, or felony perjury penalty. The court affirmed the denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress.

Holdings

1. An eWarrant application satisfies the constitutional oath-or-affirmation requirement when the affiant knowingly and intentionally submits a statement to a neutral and detached magistrate, declares or affirms that the information is true and correct, and acknowledges exposure to criminal penalties for making a false statement.
2. The Constitution does not require that an affirmation be signed before a notary or other authorized oath-taker, contain a jurat, be verbally administered, or carry the threat of felony perjury prosecution. A criminal penalty, including a class B misdemeanor, is sufficient if it impresses upon the affiant the solemnity and importance of the occasion.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Utah's eWarrant application was supported by an oath or affirmation as required by the Fourth Amendment and article I, section 14 of the Utah Constitution.
2. Whether the affirmation was constitutionally insufficient because it was not signed before a notary or authorized oath-taker and lacked a jurat.
3. Whether a constitutionally sufficient affirmation requires an express threat of felony perjury prosecution rather than a general statement that the affiant is subject to criminal penalties.

Disposition

affirmed