State v. Gutierrez-Perez, 337 P.3d 205

On May 22, 2011 Gabriel Gutierrez-Perez caused a fatal multi-vehicle crash, admitted to drinking, and was transported to a hospital where police sought his blood.
Police used Utah's eWarrant system to obtain electronic warrants to draw blood; the eWarrant included the statement: "By submitting this affidavit, I declare under criminal penalty of the State of Utah that the foregoing is true and correct." The application was submitted electronically to an on-call judge who issued the warrant.
Multiple blood draws were performed; blood-alcohol test showed 0.11.
Defendant moved to suppress blood-evidence, arguing the eWarrant affidavit lacked a constitutionally required "oath or affirmation," so the warrants were invalid; the district court denied the motion.
Defendant reserved appeal of the suppression ruling after pleading guilty to criminally negligent homicide and DUI; the Utah Supreme Court granted review of whether the eWarrant satisfied the Fourth Amendment and Utah Constitution "oath or affirmation" requirement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Gutierrez-Perez)	Held
Whether Utah's eWarrant affidavit satisfied the Fourth Amendment/Utah Constitution requirement that a warrant be supported by an "oath or affirmation"	eWarrant language constitutes an "affirmation" because it declares truthfulness under criminal penalty and was knowingly submitted to a neutral magistrate	The eWarrant lacks a proper oath/affirmation: it was not sworn before a notary/magistrate, contains statutory "unsworn declaration" language, and does not expressly warn of perjury/felony penalty	The eWarrant satisfied the constitutional "oath or affirmation" requirement: the declaration under criminal penalty, knowingly submitted to a magistrate, met the original-meaning test for an affirmation; suppression denial affirmed

Mickelsen v. Craigco, Inc., 767 P.2d 561 (Utah 1989) (addressed requirements for verifications, not controlling on what constitutes an oath or affirmation)
State v. Price, 270 P.3d 527 (Utah 2012) (general standard for reviewing suppression rulings)
United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945 (U.S. 2012) (context for Fourth Amendment warrant jurisprudence)
Virginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164 (2008) (discussion of constitutional text and historical meaning)
United States v. Bueno-Vargas, 383 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2004) (definition and purpose of an oath or affirmation in warrant applications)
United States v. Collazo-Castro, 660 F.3d 516 (1st Cir. 2011) (discussing affirmation as formal attestation of truth)
Mercatus Group, LLC v. Lake Forest Hosp., 641 F.3d 834 (7th Cir. 2011) (oath/affirmation backed by penalty should impress solemnity and importance)
People v. Sullivan, 56 N.Y.2d 378 (N.Y. 1982) (upholding warrant based on statement referencing misdemeanor penalty; statutory notice can be functional equivalent of traditional oath)
Ferguson v. Comm'r, 921 F.2d 588 (5th Cir. 1991) (acknowledgement of penalty for falsehood can satisfy oath or affirmation requirement)