19 min read
The process of issuing search warrants that rely on telephonic, video, or electronic affidavits varies significantly from one state to another, reflecting the diverse legal frameworks and technological advancements across the country. This variation is not merely a matter of procedural differences but is deeply rooted in the historical and cultural contexts that shape each state's legal system. Each state has its own set of regulations and procedures that govern how these warrants can be requested, reviewed, and approved, often influenced by local judicial interpretations and technological capabilities. These regulations are crafted to balance the need for effective law enforcement with the protection of individual privacy rights, a balance that is constantly evolving as new technologies emerge and societal values shift.
Which states can use electronic search warrants? This is a key question for law enforcement agencies, legal practitioners, and IT teams, as the answer varies widely depending on the jurisdiction. The ability to use electronic search warrants can significantly impact the efficiency and speed of legal processes, making it a crucial consideration for those involved in the legal system. Understanding these distinctions is critical for navigating the legal landscape effectively, as it allows for a more efficient approach.
In this context, it is important to understand the specific legal landscape of each state to fully grasp how electronic search warrants are managed. This understanding requires not only a knowledge of the laws themselves but also an awareness of how these laws are applied in practice, which can vary based on local judicial attitudes and the availability of technological resources. Below is a comprehensive overview of the states that have enacted specific laws permitting the use of electronic search warrants, highlighting the differences in their approaches and the implications for law enforcement and privacy rights. This overview serves as a valuable resource for anyone seeking to understand the complexities of electronic search warrants in the United States, providing insights into the legal and technological factors that influence their use.
Alabama
Ala. R. Crim. P. Rule 3.8: “If circumstances make it reasonable to dispense...with a written affidavit” a warrant may be issued “based upon sworn testimony communicated by telephone or other appropriate means, including facsimile transmission”; requesting person prepares a duplicate document and reads it to the magistrate, who creates “the original warrant”; the applicant is directed to sign the magistrate’s name to the duplicate; magistrate is to place caller under oath and If recording device is available, record the exchange; otherwise make written record; also, the magistrate may direct that the proposed warrant be modified.
Alaska
Alaska Stat. § 12.35.010: warrant “may issue upon the sworn oral testimony...communicated by telephone or other appropriate means, or sworn affidavit submitted by facsimile”.
Alaska Stat. § 12.35.015: applicants to be placed under oath and a voice recording device to be used; duplicate warrant to be prepared if facsimile cannot be transmitted; applicant to sign the judicial officer’s name on the warrant and judicial officer signs the original warrant; also, the magistrate may direct that the duplicate original warrant be modified.
Arizona
A.R.S. §13-3914: “In lieu of, or in addition to, a written affidavit...the magistrate may take an oral statement under oath which shall be recorded...(and which)...may be given in person to the magistrate or by telephone, radio, or other means of electronic communication."
A.R.S. §13-3915: if the applicant for the warrant “is not in the actual physical presence of the magistrate” the applicant may be authorized to sign the magistrate’s name to a “duplicate original warrant”; the magistrate signs the original warrant and files both when the duplicate is returned; the magistrate’s signature may also be affixed on “a telefacsimile of an original warrant”.
Arkansas
A.C.A. §16-82-201: “If the circumstances make it reasonable to dispense with a written affidavit” a warrant may be issued based upon “sworn oral testimony communicated by telephone or other appropriate means”; applicant to prepare duplicate warrant and to be directed to sign the judicial officer’s name ; applicant to be placed under oath and recording to be made if device is available; if longhand verbatim record is made, the judicial officer is to file a signed copy; also, the judicial officer may direct that the warrant be modified.
Ark.R.Crim.P. Rule 13.1: application and affidavit may be submitted facsimile “or by other electronic means”; if oral testimony, judicial officer to place applicant under oath and “recorded testimony” may be received; judicial officer signs warrant and then transmits by facsimile or other electronic means.
California
Cal Pen Code §1526: if the oath is made “using telephone and facsimile transmission equipment, telephone and email, or telephone and computer server” the affiant transmits the affidavit and proposed warrant to the magistrate, who confirms receipt, verifies that all pages are received and that affiant’s signature (which may be original, digital, or electronic) is genuine; magistrate notes that a telephone oath was administered, signs the warrant and transmits it; this is now deemed the “original” warrant.
Colorado
C.R.S. 16-1-106: written applications and affidavits and warrants may be submitted and issued “by an electronically or electromagnetically transmitted facsimile or by an electronic transfer that may include an electronic signature”; these documents are to be treated as original documents.
Colo.Crim.P. 41: warrants, signed affidavits and accompanying documents “may be transmitted by electronic facsimile transmission (fax) or by electronic transfer with electronic signatures” and judges may treat these documents as originals; a warrant affidavit “may be sworn to or affirmed” by oath administered over the telephone.
Washington, D.C.
D.C. Code §23-522: “Each application for a search warrant shall be made in writing, or by telephone or other appropriate means, including facsimile transmissions or other electronic communications, upon oath or affirmation to a judicial officer”.
D.C. SCR-Crim. Rule 4.1: “A judge may consider information communicated by telephone or other reliable electronic means” if the applicant/affiant is placed under oath and examined, a record is created, and original and duplicate documents are prepared; if documents are transmitted to the judge “by reliable electronic means, the transmission received by the judge may serve as the original”; also, the judge may modify the warrant and if so, transmit the modified version to the applicant or direct the applicant to modify the “proposed original warrant” and file the modified original warrant as modified by the judge.
Florida
Fla. Stat. §933.07: A judge may electronically sign a search warrant if satisfied that probable cause exists and the judge determines that the affiant’s signature or electronic signature is present, that the application is supported by oath administered “by the judge or other person authorized by law to administer oaths” and that if the documents were submitted electronically, the submission was “by reliable electronic means”; the warrant is deemed issued when the judge’s signature or electronic signature is affixed.
Georgia
O.C.G.A. §17-5-21.1: Search warrants may be issued “by video conference” provided that when a judge issues such a warrant, the judge is physically located in the state; the judge shall administer an oath to any person testifying; a video recording shall be submitted and maintained as part of the record, and the judge and the affiant shall sign their respective documents “by any reasonable means” by which they can be identified, including but not limited to a “typewritten name, signature affixed by electronic stylus, or any other reasonable means”.
Hawaii
Haw. R. Penal P. Rule 41: “[a] warrant shall issue only on an affidavit or affidavits sworn to before the judge...”; however, “a sworn oral statement, in person or by telephone, may be received”, recorded and transcribed, and in such cases, this statement is deemed to be an affidavit; a judge may orally authorize an officer to place the judge’s “signature” on a duplicate original warrant, “which shall be deemed to be a valid search warrant...”.
Idaho
Idaho Code §19-4404: in lieu of a written affidavit, a judge may administer oaths by telephone and take testimony by telephone; oral testimony “as recorded” must be filed with the clerk.
Idaho Code §19-4406: if the affidavit is “related to the court telephonically” the officer may be authorized to sign the magistrate’s name on a “duplicate original warrant” which must then be returned to the magistrate, who then “shall endorse his name and enter the date on the warrant when it is returned to him”.
Idaho Code §19-4408: service may be made “in person, by mail or facsimile transmission, or by electronic mail. Unless an investigation necessitates otherwise, the officer should attempt notification on the person whom it is served prior to electronic mail service”.
I.C.R. 41: court rule providing for receipt of information “communicated by telephone or other reliable electronic means” and for sending a copy of a warrant electronically to an officer for service of the warrant.
Illinois
725 ILCS 5/108-4: a warrant upon written complaint may be issued “electronically or electromagnetically by use of electronic mail or a facsimile transmission machine”; in terrorism or terrorism-related cases, a warrant upon oral testimony may be used, when circumstances make it reasonable to dispense with a written affidavit; in other cases, a warrant may be issued “upon testimony by simultaneous video and audio transmission”; if possible, the requestor should submit material to the judge by facsimile, email, “or other reliable electronic means”; if that is or if impracticable, the requestor is to read a proposed warrant to the judge who then makes a verbatim copy; the oath and all testimony to be recorded; these warrants are warrants of the issuing judge and not of the court, so no court seal need be placed on the warrant; also, the judge may direct that the warrant be modified.
Indiana
Burns Ind. Code Ann. §35-33-5-8: a judge may issue a search warrant without an affidavit if the judge receives testimony subject to the penalties for perjury of the same facts required for an affidavit “in a nonadversarial, recorded hearing before the judge; orally by telephone or radio; in writing by facsimile transmission (FAX); or in writing by electronic mail or other electronic communication”; statute provides special rules for each of the alternatives and provides that electronic signatures may be used for the affiant or the judge; also, the judge may direct the applicant to modify the warrant or may modify a transmitted warrant and transmit that modified warrant to the applicant.
Iowa
Iowa Code §321J.10: telephone warrants may be used after a refusal to test in a DUI case in which the DUI caused death or serious injury; procedure includes placing the caller under oath, the magistrate preparing a verbatim copy, use of a duplicate warrant for service and “if a recording device is available” recording the call and ultimately transcribing it.
Iowa Code §462A.14D: telephone warrants after a refusal to test in a boating while intoxicated case causing death or serious injury; procedure similar to DUI warrants (in both this statute and the DUI statute, the magistrate may direct that the warrant be modified).
Iowa Code Chapter 808: legislative changes effective July 1, 2017 permit electronic submission of search warrant documents, telephone testimony, and electronic issuance of search warrants; the judicial branch to establish “processes and procedures” for implementation.
Kansas
K.S.A. §22-2502: warrants may issue on oral or written statements “conveyed or received by electronic communication” oral statements are to be “reduced to writing as soon thereafter as possible”.
K.S.A. §22-2504: “warrants may be transmitted by electronic communication”.
Kentucky
KRS §455.170: “The Supreme Court of Kentucky may, by rule, authorize a process allowing a search warrant to be applied for and issued electronically...”.
Louisiana
La. C.Cr.P. Art 162: an affidavit containing the electronic signature of the applicant will suffice “provided that such signature is made under penalty of perjury...”.
La. C.Cr.P. Art 162.1: sworn oral testimony may be communicated “by telephone, radio, or such other electronic method of communication deemed appropriate by the judge”; a recording shall be made and then “transcribed and fixed in the record within seven days”; there is also a provision for testimony by facsimile “after the administration of the oath by the judge by telephone, radio, or other such electronic method...”.
Maine
15 M.R.S. §55: “The Supreme Judicial Court shall by rule provide the procedure of the application for and issuance of search warrants.”.
Me. R. U. Crim. P. Rule 41C: a request for a search warrant made from outside the presence of the court “must be in the form of a written affidavit transmitted by reliable electronic means”; the applicant, “by telephone or other electronic means” must attest to its contents; the court may hear evidence under oath or affirmation “by telephone or other reliable means” and have that taken down by court reporter or recorded; a proposed search warrant transmitted to the court may serve as the original; if signed the court transmits the warrant “by electronic means” to the applicant, and a copy of the warrant shall be promptly filed; also, the court may modify the proposed search warrant, and the issued warrant shall be filed.
Maryland
Md. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Code Ann. §1-203: application is to be in writing and may be submitted “by secure fax” or “by secure electronic mail” if complete and printable images of all documents are submitted; the applicant may converse with the judge in person, or via telephone or video; the judge may sign and transmit the warrant and supporting documents by secure fax or by secure electronic mail.
Md. Rule 4-601: applicant may transmit application, affidavit, and proposed warrant in person or “by secure facsimile” or “by secure and reliable electronic mail that permits the judge to print the complete text of the documents”; the warrant may be issued electronically.
Michigan
MCLS §780.651: affidavit “may be made by any electronic or electromagnetic means of communication, including by facsimile or over a computer network” if the judge orally administers an oath or affirmation to the applicant, and the applicant signs the affidavit (the signature may be on the affidavit before it is transmitted by facsimile, or an electronic signature on the affidavit “transmitted over a computer network)”; warrant may be issued by facsimile or by any electronic or electromagnetic means of communication, and judge may sign an electronically issued warrant from any location in the state; an oath or affirmation administered by electronic means “is considered to be administered before the judge”; the transmitted copies of documents are “duplicate originals” not required to have an impression made by an impression seal.
MCLS §780.651: statute addresses the validity of an oath or affirmation “administered by electronic or electromagnetic means of communication”.
Minnesota
Minn. R. Crim. P. 33.05: warrants and other documents may be sent via electronic submission and such documents are “valid and enforceable”.
Minn. R. Crim. P. 36.01-36.08: request for search warrant may be made , in whole or in part, on sworn oral testimony “via telephone, radio, or other similar means of communication” and “written submissions may be presented by facsimile or electronic transmission, or by other appropriate means”; the officer prepares a duplicate original warrant and reads it to the judge, who records, verbatim, what has been read (unless the judge permits the document to be transmitted to the judge); the proceeding must be recorded by the judge or, if the judge permits, by the officer requesting the warrant (who then must submit the recording to the judge as soon as practical); the judge may sign the warrant and transmit it to the officer or may direct that the officer sign the judge’s name to the duplicate warrant; all documents (including transcripts or a longhand verbatim record) to be filed; also, the judge may direct modifications, “which must be included on the original and any duplicate original warrant”.
Minn. R. Crim. P. 37.01-37.02: search warrant applications must be supported by written affidavit, sworn to under oath or by written statement signed under penalty of perjury; if a judge administers an oath via telephone, radio, or similar means of communication and the applicant does no more than attest to the contents of a signed statement that was transmitted electronically, a verbatim recording of the oath is not required.
Missouri
§542.276 R.S.Mo.: application for search warrant “may be submitted by facsimile or other electronic means”.
Montana
46-5-222, MCA: when an applicant seeks a search warrant by telephone, the applicant must “state reasons to justify immediate issuance”; the judge may administer an oath or affirmation by telephone, and the testimony must be subscribed the applicant and “attached to or logically associated with” the applicant’s electronic signature; a recording must be made by either the judge or the officer, and in either case, it must be transcribed verbatim as soon as possible; if the warrant is approved over the phone, the officer shall sign the warrant in the officer’s name and in the name of the judge, and if the judge signs the warrant by electronic signature, the peace officer must initial the judge’s signature and the officer’s signature “to indicate that the signatures were made electronically in accordance with this section”.
Nebraska
R.R.S. Neb. §29-814.01: an affidavit “may be submitted to the magistrate or judge in person or by facsimile or other electronic means and the warrant may be issued to the affiant in person or by facsimile or other electronic means”; if an officer wishes to request a warrant by telephone, the officer first contacts “the county attorney or a deputy county attorney...for purposes of explaining why a search warrant is to be issued pursuant to a telephonic statement”; if the prosecutor is satisfied that a warrant is justified and that circumstances justify its immediate issuance, the prosecutor is to contact the magistrate, provide the magistrate with a number where the officer may be reached, and then the magistrate “shall call the officer at the number provided and shall place the officer under oath and take his or her statement”; the magistrate must record the statement and a certified transcription is to be filed.
R.R.S. Neb. §29-814.05: officer to complete a duplicate warrant and sign the judge’s name and the officer’s name to the warrant; the judge to complete and sign the original warrant and when the duplicate is returned, the judge is to sign the duplicate and both the duplicate and the original are then to be filed; if the judge fails to sign the duplicate, the warrant “shall be invalid”.
Neb. Ct. R. §6-612: fax transmission authorized for warrants, and “a faxed document shall have the same force and effect as the original document issued by a court”.
Nevada
Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. §179.045: “Secure electronic transmission may be used for the submission of an application and affidavit...and for the issuance of a search warrant by a magistrate”; “secure electronic transmission” is one by which only the intended recipient receives the information, the identity of the sender can be authenticated, and the information received is identical to the information that was sent.
New Hampshire
RSA 595-A:4-a: “The personal appearance and authorization for a search warrant under ...(the search warrant statute, RSA 595-A:4)...may be by means of telecommunication or electronic communication, and electronic signature...”
New Jersey
N.J. Court Rules, R. 3:5-3: a Superior Court judge may issue a search warrant upon sworn oral testimony communicated by telephone, radio “or other means of electronic communication”; testimony shall be recorded or judge is to make longhand notes; the sworn testimony is deemed an affidavit, and if the judge is satisfied that “exigent circumstances exist to excuse the failure to obtain a written warrant”” and sufficient grounds have been shown, the judge issuing the warrant directs the applicant to “enter this authorization verbatim on a form...designated as the duplicate original search warrant”; the judge also contemporaneously records the factual determination as to the exigent circumstances which justified the use of this procedure.
New Mexico
5-211 NMRA: a request for a warrant may be made “by transmission of the affidavit and proposed search warrant...to the judge by telephone, facsimile, electronic mail, or other reliable electronic means”; judge may require appearance “personally, telephonically, or by audio-video transmission”; if the judge administers an oath “remotely” the means used must be designed to ensure that the judge confirms the identity of anyone testifying; the warrant “shall be transmitted by reliable electronic means” and the judge is to file a duplicate original with the court; signatures may be by original signature, by copy of an original signature, by a computer generated signature or “any other signature otherwise authorized by law”.
New York
NY CLS CPL §690.35: application may be in writing or oral.
NY CLS CPL §690.36: oral applications may be by telephone, radio or other means of electronic communication; applicant must be identified and sworn, and other persons may testify if properly identified and sworn; oaths to be recorded by recording device, stenographer, or by longhand notes and transcription filed within 24 hours of issuance.
NY CLS CPL §690.40: applicant to prepare warrant and read it, verbatim, to the judge.
NY CLS CPL §690.45: warrants obtained on oral application must include the name of the issuing judge but not the judge’s “subscription”.
North Carolina
N.C.Gen.Stat. §15A-245: written affidavit or “oral testimony under oath or affirmation presented by a sworn law enforcement officer...by means of an audio and video transmission in which both parties can see and hear each other” may support a warrant; to be considered, oral testimony must be “either recorded or contemporaneously summarized in the record or on the face of the warrant by the issuing official”.
North Dakota
N.D.R. Crim. P. Rule 4.1: the magistrate may consider information communicated by telephone or other reliable electronic means; testifying persons must be placed under oath; the magistrate must record the testimony by a recording device, a court reporter, or in writing, and must certify and file the written record and exhibits; if the magistrate relies upon a sworn written affidavit, “the magistrate must acknowledge the attestation in writing on the affidavit”; the applicant must prepare a proposed duplicate and read its contents verbatim to the magistrate, who must enter the contents onto the original warrant; if the contents were transmitted “by reliable electronic means, the transmission received by the magistrate may serve as the original”; the magistrate must sign the original and transmit it, or direct the applicant to sign the magistrate’s name and enter the date and time on the duplicate original; also, the magistrate may modify the warrant and then transmit the modified version to the applicant or file the original modified version and direct the applicant to “modify the proposed duplicate original accordingly”.
Ohio
Ohio Crim. R. 41: if a search warrant affidavit “is provided by reliable electronic means, the applicant communicating the affidavit shall be placed under oath and shall swear or affirm the affidavit communicated”; if probable cause exists, “the warrant may be issued through reliable electronic means”.
Oklahoma
22 Okl.St. §1223.1: a magistrate may take an oral statement under oath “which shall at that time be recorded electronically and thereafter transcribed by an official court reporter” which then is deemed to be an affidavit and which is to be kept with the official records.
22 Okl.St. §1225: an affidavit, proposed search warrant, or both “may be communicated to the magistrate by telephone or by electronic mail or any similar electronic communication which delivers a complete printable image of the warrant or affidavit”; the affiant is to recite the information establishing probable cause, recite the proposed warrant, and obtain the magistrate’s permission to place the magistrate’s name on the warrant; the magistrate’s oral recorded authorization to print the name “shall constitute issuance of the search warrant”; if electronic mail or other electronic communication is used, the affidavit may be sworn to by telephone and the magistrate may physically sign a printed copy and transmit it back to the affiant or return a copy of the document (as received or as modified by the magistrate) to the affiant; the magistrate may modify the warrant, “provided a copy of the modified document is included with the return electronic communication to the affiant”.
Oregon
ORS §133.545: instead of a written application, a judge make take an oral statement under oath, which shall be recorded and “the recording shall constitute an affidavit for the purposes of this section”; a written application may be a proposed warrant and affidavit sent to the court by facsimile transmission “or any similar electronic transmission that delivers a complete printable image of the signed affidavit and proposed warrant”; the affidavit may have a notarized acknowledgment or the affiant may swear to the affidavit by telephone; if an oath is sworn telephonically, the judge “must execute a declaration that recites the manner and time of the oath’s administration” which must be filed with the return; a signed warrant may be delivered to the person making the application by facsimile or similar electronic transmission; the original warrant is to be filed by the judge and the original affidavit is to be filed by the person making the application.
Pennsylvania
Pa. R. Crim. P. 203: the “issuing authority” may use “advanced communication technology”; if such technology is to be used, the affiant must personally communicate with the issuing authority by any device “which, at a minimum, allows for simultaneous audio-visual communication” to permit verification of identity and oral administration of an oath; when a warrant is issued, “the issuing authority shall provide the original search warrant to the affiant and the issuing authority shall retain a contemporaneously prepared copy”.
South Carolina
Order of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of South Carolina (July 26, 2001): Facsimile warrants permitted in extraordinary circumstances or after normal court hours; officer to “fully prepare the search warrant and all related affidavits”; officer then to call the appropriate magistrate, brief the magistrate on the need for the warrant, sign all of the pages of the warrant, and then fax the warrant to the magistrate. If the magistrate is satisfied with the warrant, the magistrate will call the officer and telephonically swear the officer to the facts contained in the warrant; the magistrate will then sign each page of the warrant and fax it back to the officer. The magistrate must confirm the identity of the officer by either voice identification, by contacting the dispatcher of the officer’s department for confirmation of the officer’s identity and confirmation that the officer is on duty and that the dispatcher or the officer’s supervisor is aware of the warrant request, or through use of a pager confirmation system.
South Dakota
S.D. Codified Laws §23A-35-4.2: magistrate may receive an affidavit by electronic transmission and may issue a warrant by the same method; all applicable requirements for the issuance of a warrant shall be met, and the electronic document shall have the same force and effect as the original.
S.D. Codified Laws §23A-35-5 (Rule 41(c)(2)): when circumstances make it reasonable, a search warrant may be issued upon sworn oral testimony communicated by telephone “or other appropriate means” which shall be recorded, transcribed, certified by the magistrate and filed with the court and which “shall be deemed to be an affidavit”.
S.D. Codified Laws §23A-35-6 (Rule 41(c)(2)(A)): the applicant for a warrant must read verbatim the contents of the warrant and if approved, the magistrate shall direct the applicant to sign the magistrate’s name on the warrant; this is a duplicate original warrant “and is a warrant for purposes of this chapter”; the magistrate may direct that specific modifications be made, and in cases where the magistrate directs the applicant to sign the magistrate’s name, “the magistrate will have an original warrant made”.
Tennessee
Tenn. R. Crim. P. Rule 41: a magistrate may issue a warrant based on information communicated by telephone or other reliable electronic means; the proposed warrant, the affidavit and supporting documents may be transmitted by facsimile transmission or by electronic transfer to the magistrate; the warrant affidavit shall be sworn to using audio-visual means; the documents received by the magistrate shall be deemed originals and filed with the clerk of court and the magistrate shall issue a copy of the warrant, with electronic signatures, to the affiant; “this section does not alter the requirement that the affidavit be submitted to the magistrate in writing regardless of the means of transmission”.
Texas
Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Art. 18.01: a magistrate may consider information communicated “by telephone or other reliable electronic means”; a person providing testimony must be placed under oath; if an affidavit is submitted by reliable electronic means, “the magistrate must acknowledge the attestation in writing on the affidavit; if additional testimony is considered, the testimony must be recorded verbatim by recording, by court reporter, or by writing, this must then be transcribed, and all documents are to be certified as accurate and preserved; the applicant must prepare a duplicate original warrant, and read the contents verbatim or transmit the contents; the magistrate may modify the submitted warrant and if so, may transmit a modified warrant or direct the applicant to modify the duplicate warrant; the magistrate must sign the original documents and transmit them to the applicant, or direct the applicant to sign the magistrate’s name on the duplicate original.
Utah
Utah R. Crim. P. Rule 40: “remotely communicated warrants” may be issued “when reasonable under the circumstances”; a request to the magistrate may be made by “voice, image, text, or any combination of those, or by other means”; testimony is to be under oath and recorded, which may be “by writing or by mechanical, magnetic, electronic, photographic storage, or by other means”; the magistrate may direct the applicant to sign the magistrate’s name, and the warrant and recorded testimony shall be retained and filed with the court.
Vermont
V.R.Crim.P. Rule 41: a warrant may be issued based on information “communicated by reliable electronic means” (which includes facsimile, electronic mail or “other method of transmitting a duplicate of an original document”); the applicant notifies a judicial officer that a signed or unsigned affidavit will be transmitted; an oath is to be administered over the telephone and noted on the affidavit; “the determination of probable cause ...shall be made solely on the contents of the affidavit or affidavits provided”; the applicant prepares and submits an original warrant and the judicial officer may sign (or modify and then sign) the warrant, and return a copy to the applicant; the judicial officer then enters the signed original (or modified) warrant into the record.
Virginia
Va.Code Ann. §19.2-54: the affidavit “may be filed by electronically transmitted (i) facsimile process or (ii) electronic record”; the affidavit is to be certified by the officer who issues the warrant and transmitted or delivered to the clerk; “’affidavit’...means statements made under oath or affirmation and preserved verbatim”.
Washington
Rev.Code Wash. (ARCW) §10.79.035: search warrant applications “may be provided or transmitted to the magistrate by telephone, email, or any other reliable method”.
Wash. CRR 2.3: evidence in support of the warrant must be in the form of affidavits, “or sworn testimony establishing the grounds...and may be provided to the court by any reliable means. Any sworn testimony must be recorded and made part of the court record and shall be transcribed if requested”; the court “shall issue a warrant or direct an individual whom it authorizes for such purpose to affix the court’s signature...the court’s authorization may be communicated by any reliable means”.
Wisconsin
Wis.Stat. §968.12: search warrant may be based upon sworn testimony “communicated to the judge by telephone, radio, or other means of electronic communication”; requester prepares a duplicate original warrant and reads it, verbatim, to the judge, who enters what is read on the original warrant; when issuing the warrant, the judge directs the person requesting the warrant to sign the judge’s name on the duplicate original warrant and the judge signs the original warrant; the requester may send a proposed warrant by electronic transmission and the judge may sign that document and transmit that signed warrant to the requester; a caller will be placed under oath and any necessary testimony will be under oath, recorded, and ultimately transcribed and filed with the court; also, the judge may direct that the warrant be modified.
Wyoming
Wyo.Stat. §31-6-102: if a DUI defendant has caused a serious injury or death and refuses testing, an officer or a prosecuting attorney may seek “a remotely communicated search warrant, when reasonable under the circumstances”; in such cases, all communication between the judicial officer and the requestor “may be remotely transmitted by voice, image, text or any combination thereof, or by other means and shall be recorded...by writing or mechanical, magnetic, electronic, photographic storage or by other means”; the judicial officer may direct the requestor to sign the judicial officer’s name “on a warrant at a remote location”.
W.R.Cr.P. Rule 41: search warrants may be based “wholly or partially” on recorded sworn testimony, preserved by a court reporter or by a recording device; if the judicial officer is to issue a warrant based upon communication received by “telephone or other electronic means” and if a telephone warrant is used, the requestor and any witnesses must be placed under oath; the requestor must prepare a proposed duplicate warrant, and the judicial officer must enter the contents of the proposed duplicate warrant into an original warrant; the judicial officer may direct that the warrant be modified; if the proposed duplicate warrant is received by electronic means, the judicial officer may modify it (in which case it can serve as the original warrant), and then transmit the original warrant (or the modified warrant) to the requestor.