Sara Katherine Clay v. State, 2012 WL 955323

Clay was charged with driving while intoxicated and moved to suppress blood evidence obtained via a warrant.
Officer Ortega swore to an affidavit over the telephone to Judge Harris, who had Ortega fax the unsigned affidavit to him for signing and issuance of a warrant.
Judge Harris signed the affidavit and a warrant for blood draw was issued based on the affidavit Ortega had sworn to by phone.
Clay challenged the warrant, arguing the oath was not administered face-to-face with a magistrate, rendering the affidavit invalid.
The trial court denied suppression; Clay pled guilty and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding telephonic oaths valid under Texas law.
The majority concluded that telephonic oaths can support a valid warrant, aligning with federal practice and prior Texas jurisprudence that the oath, not verbal presence, is essential.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Do telephonic oaths satisfy the oath requirement for a search warrant?	Clay: oath must be face-to-face with the magistrate.	Clay: telephonic oath is permissible under Texas law and the Fourth Amendment.	Telephonic oath valid; warrant upheld.
If the telephonic oath is valid, should evidence be suppressed if the oath is deemed invalid for lack of face-to-face presence?	Clay: any invalid oath invalidates the warrant and suppresses the evidence.	State: good-faith reliance on a valid warrant justifies admission of evidence.	Good-faith exception applies; suppression not required.

Smith v. State, 207 S.W.3d 787 (Tex.Crim.App.2006) (affidavit sufficiency depends on oath; signatures are not sole necessity)
Hunter v. State, 92 S.W.3d 596 (Tex.App.-Waco 2002) (unsigned affidavits not necessarily invalid; focus on oath)
United States v. Turner, 558 F.2d 46 (2d Cir.1977) (telephonic warrants and flexibility in oath requirement)
United States v. Bueno-Vargas, 388 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir.2004) (Fourth Amendment considerations with telephonic/remote warrants)