The Requirement for an Oath in a Warrant Does Not Mean a Verbal Oath

Police may need to obtain a warrant to draw blood to prove that a driver was intoxicated. They must meet all legal requirements to get this warrant with no shortcuts. If the warrant is not valid on its face, the defendant may seek to have the court suppress any evidence obtained from that defective warrant. However, in State v. Moeser, the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed an OWI conviction, finding that the warrant at issue was valid when the affiant met the oath requirements.

Here, Moeser was arrested on suspicion of OWI (for a sixth offense) and was taken to a hospital for a blood draw. Moeser refused the blood draw, so the officer obtained a warrant to compel a blood draw. The officer wrote the facts that supported his conclusion of probable cause. He hand-wrote his name above the text that stated, "being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says." He was not actually verbally placed under oath or affirmation before the warrant was granted. 

Moeser challenged the finding of probable cause, claiming that the warrant was invalid because the officer was not placed under oath. However, the State countered that the language of the affidavit showed that the officer intended to swear to the truth of the contents of the affidavit. Moeser did not challenge the finding of probable cause at all. 

There Must Be an Oath, but it Means Acknowledgment of the Requirement to Tell the Truth

Under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, a criminal defendant has the right to be free from abusive searches and seizures. The police officer must have probable cause that the suspect has engaged in criminal activity to legally execute a search. If there is no exception, the police officer must obtain a physical search warrant. An oath or affirmation is a crucial part of the affidavit that supports probable cause.

The Court held that there is no literal requirement to actually be administered a verbal oath before a warrant can be granted. There is no specific procedure that must be used. Instead, the requirement for an oath or affirmation can be interpreted broadly. An oath does not mean that there has to be a formal swearing. Instead, the officer must acknowledge a sense of obligation to tell the truth.

There are times when courts may look to function over form and not take certain language in the Constitution or case law literally. Moeser was one case of that. However, Moeser does not stand for the proposition that the officer can do whatever they want in obtaining a warrant. They must still attest to the facts that support probable cause. If the facts do not show that there was probable cause, the court may suppress evidence.

Contact an Eau Claire Criminal Defense Lawyer Today

The attorneys at the Cohen Law Offices can review your case and determine whether you may be able to challenge what you believe to be an illegal search or seizure. If you have grounds, we can file a motion seeking to have the court suppress key evidence that is to be used against you. Call us today at 715-382-9447, or send us a message online to discuss your case.