323 P.3d 1017
Utah2014Background
- Gutierrez-Perez pled guilty to criminally negligent automobile homicide and DUI after a crash; he reserved his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress blood evidence.
- Police remotely applied for a blood draw warrant via Utah’s eWarrant system, attaching an electronic affidavit stating truth under criminal penalty.
- An on-call judge issued the eWarrant after finding probable cause based on the officer’s submission.
- Two blood draws occurred about an hour apart; a third draw occurred days later with a second warrant using the same system.
- The blood test showed a BAC of 0.11 at the time of the draw; Gutierrez-Perez challenged the warrants as unconstitutional for lacking oath/affirmation.
- District court denied the motion to suppress; Utah Supreme Court reviews de novo whether the eWarrant satisfied the oath/affirmation requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Utah's eWarrant satisfy the Fourth Amendment's oath or affirmation requirement? | Gutierrez-Perez argues no oath/affirmation present in eWarrant. | State contends the eWarrant contains an affirmation sufficient to meet the requirement. | Yes; the eWarrant language constitutes a constitutionally valid affirmation. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Price, 270 P.3d 527 (Utah 2012) (affirmation analysis guiding oath/affirmation interpretation)
- Mickelsen v. Craigco, Inc., 767 P.2d 561 (Utah 1989) (verifications; not controlling for oaths/affirmations in this context)
- People v. Sullivan, 437 N.E.2d 1130 (N.Y. 1982) (statutory form notices can substitute for traditional oaths)
- United States v. Bueno-Vargas, 383 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2004) (affirmation sufficiency and perjury considerations)
- United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (U.S. 2012) (oath vs. affirmation distinction and neutral magistrate concept)