A. Before issuing a warrant, the magistrate may examine on oath the person or persons seeking the warrant, and any witnesses produced, and must take his affidavit, or their affidavits, in writing and cause the affidavit to be subscribed by the party or parties making the affidavit. Before issuing the warrant, the magistrate may also examine any other sworn affidavit submitted to the magistrate that sets forth facts tending to establish probable cause for the issuance of the warrant.
B. The affidavit or affidavits must set forth the facts tending to establish the grounds of the application, or probable cause for believing the grounds exist. The person or persons seeking the warrant and the judicial officer issuing the warrant must have probable cause for believing the grounds exist.
C. In lieu of, or in addition to, a written affidavit, or affidavits, as provided in subsection A, the magistrate may take an oral statement under oath which shall be recorded on tape, wire or other comparable method. This statement may be given in person to the magistrate or by telephone, radio or other means of electronic communication. This statement is deemed to be an affidavit for the purposes of issuance of a search warrant. If a recording of the sworn statement is made, the statement shall be transcribed at the request of the court or either party, certified by the magistrate and filed with the court.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
18
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1980–2023 · leading case:
State v. Moody, 94 P.3d 1119 (Ariz. 2004).
State v. Moody, 94 P.3d 1119 (Ariz. 2004).
· cites it 5× “Although the transcript of the recorded affidavit supporting the warrant shows that the recording cut off the court's order authorizing the warrant, the tape contains the affiant detective's oath, her description of the facts of the case, the substantial evidence linking Moody…”
State of Arizona v. Hon. butler/tyler B., 302 P.3d 609 (Ariz. 2013).
· cites it 4× “See A.R.S. §§ 13-3914, -3915, 28-1321(D)(1). That default approach, although arguably diluting the effectiveness of the implied consent law, and not constitutionally required under McNeely (which neither involved nor discounted consent as a valid exception to the Fourth…”
State v. Hyde, 921 P.2d 655 (Ariz. 1996).
· cites it 4× “See A.R.S. § 13-3914(C) (oral testimony in support of a search warrant must be recorded).”
Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013).
“015 (2012) ; Ariz.Rev.Stat. Ann. §§ 13-3914(C), 13-3915(D), (E) (West 2010); Ark.”
State v. Buccini, 810 P.2d 178 (Ariz. 1991).
· cites it 4× “[2] Under A.R.S. § 13-3914(C), a magistrate may take the affiant's oral statement under oath by telephone.”
State v. Valencia, 459 A.2d 1149 (N.J. 1983).
· cites it 2× “Penal Code §§ 1526(b), 1528(b) (West 1982); Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. §§ 13-3914, 13-3915 (1982) (explicitly providing for issuance of warrants pursuant to telephone applications).”
Clay, Sara Kathrine, 391 S.W.3d 94 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “"); Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3914 (" C. In lieu of, or in addition to, a written affidavit, or affidavits, as provided in subsection A, the magistrate may take an oral statement under oath which shall be recorded on tape, wire or other comparable method.”
State v. Turney, 655 P.2d 358 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 8× “159 (1933); see A.R.S. § 13-3914. In Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.”
Commonwealth v. Almonor, 120 N.E.3d 1183 (Mass. 2019).
“015 ; Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 13-3914 (C), 13-3915(D), (E) ; Ark.”
White v. State, 842 So. 2d 565 (Miss. 2003).
“015 (1991); Ariz. Rev.Stat. § 13-3914 (1999); Cal.Penal Code § 1526 (1998); Idaho Code § 19-4404 (1994); Ind.”
State of Arizona v. Ronald James Sisco II, 359 P.3d 1 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 4× “See Crocker, 97 P.3d at 96 . An ex parte warrant hearing affords no opportunity to assert a defense, prevent a search, and preserve one’s constitutional right to privacy.”
Glenn H/sonia H v. Hon hoskins/banner, 419 P.3d 567 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 2× “Both telephonic search warrants and emergency orders of protection, however, are regulated by statutes and rules of procedure that protect the due process rights of opposing parties and ensure the orderly administration of justice.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3914(C) — 8 cases
State v. Moody, 94 P.3d 1119 (Ariz. 2004).
“Although the transcript of the recorded affidavit supporting the warrant shows that the recording cut off the court's order authorizing the warrant, the tape contains the affiant detective's oath, her description of the facts of the case, the substantial evidence linking Moody…”
State v. Hyde, 921 P.2d 655 (Ariz. 1996).
“See A.R.S. § 13-3914(C) (oral testimony in support of a search warrant must be recorded).”
Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013).
“015 (2012) ; Ariz.Rev.Stat. Ann. §§ 13-3914(C), 13-3915(D), (E) (West 2010); Ark.”
State v. Buccini, 810 P.2d 178 (Ariz. 1991).
“[2] Under A.R.S. § 13-3914(C), a magistrate may take the affiant's oral statement under oath by telephone.”
Glenn H/sonia H v. Hon hoskins/banner, 419 P.3d 567 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
“Both telephonic search warrants and emergency orders of protection, however, are regulated by statutes and rules of procedure that protect the due process rights of opposing parties and ensure the orderly administration of justice.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3914(c) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3914(e) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.