(a)Before issuing the search warrant, the magistrate may examine on oath the person seeking the warrant and any witnesses the person may produce, and shall take his or her affidavit or their affidavits in writing, and cause the affidavit or affidavits to be subscribed by the party or parties making them. If the affiant transmits the proposed search warrant and all affidavits and supporting documents to the magistrate using facsimile transmission equipment, email, or computer server, the conditions in subdivision (c) apply.
(b)In lieu of the written affidavit required in subdivision (a), the magistrate may take an oral statement under oath if the oath is made under penalty of
perjury and recorded and transcribed. The transcribed statement shall be deemed to be an affidavit for the purposes of this chapter. The recording of the sworn oral statement and the transcribed statement shall be certified by the magistrate receiving it and shall be filed with the clerk of the court. In the alternative, the sworn oral statement shall be recorded by a certified court reporter and the transcript of the statement shall be certified by the reporter, after which the magistrate receiving it shall certify the transcript which shall be filed with the clerk of the court.
(c)(1)The affiant shall sign under penalty of perjury his or her affidavit in support of probable cause for issuance of a search warrant. The affiant’s signature may be in the form of a digital signature or electronic signature if email or computer
server is used for transmission to the magistrate.
(2)The magistrate shall verify that all the pages sent have been received, that all the pages are legible, and that the declarant’s signature, digital signature, or electronic signature is genuine.
(3)If the magistrate decides to issue the search warrant, he or she shall do both of the following:
(A)Sign the warrant. The magistrate’s signature may
be in the form of a digital signature or electronic signature if email or computer server is used for transmission by the magistrate.
(B)Note on the warrant the date and time of the issuance of the warrant.
(4)The magistrate shall transmit via facsimile transmission equipment, email, or computer server the signed search warrant to the affiant. The search warrant signed by the magistrate and received by the affiant shall be deemed to be the original warrant. The original warrant and any affidavits or attachments in support thereof
shall be returned as provided in Section 1534.
Notes of Decisions
California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386 (1985).
· cites it 2× “See Cal. Penal Code Ann. §§ 1526(b), 1528(b) (West 1982); People v.”
Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013).
“§ 16-82-201 (2005); Cal.Penal Code Ann. § 1526(b) (West 2011); Colo.”
Commonwealth v. Almonor, 120 N.E.3d 1183 (Mass. 2019).
· cites it 2× “See Cal. Penal Code § 1526 (b). Moreover, if a magistrate wishes to see the affiant raise his or her right hand to swear to the truth of the affidavit, the magistrate may use face-to-face video technology -- such as Skype or FaceTime software -- in the issuance of warrants.”
State v. Valencia, 459 A.2d 1149 (N.J. 1983).
· cites it 2× “41(c)(2); Cal.Penal Code §§ 1526(b), 1528(b) (West 1982); Ariz.”
Halpin v. Superior Court, 495 P.2d 1295 (Cal. 1972).
· cites it 4× “) [2] After Detective Cole of the Ontario Police Department testified in support of the search warrant (Pen. Code, § 1526, subd. (b)) the deputy district attorney and the magistrate engaged in the following conversation: "THE COURT: I am satisfied with the search warrant if you…”
State v. Ashe, 745 P.2d 1255 (Utah 1987).
· cites it 2× “2d at 1476-77 (holding that there was insufficient time to procure a telephone warrant in compliance with California Penal Code sections 1526, 1528 (West 1982).”
United States v. Ronald Lee Wulferdinger, 782 F.2d 1473 (9th Cir. 1986).
· cites it 2× “We are troubled by the routine- refusal to implement a telephonic warrant procedure in San Mateo County. Defense counsel’s comment at oral argument that all it takes for a telephonic warrant is twenty cents, a judge’s name and probable cause, ignores the requirement, however,…”
White v. State, 842 So. 2d 565 (Miss. 2003).
“§ 13-3914 (1999); Cal.Penal Code § 1526 (1998); Idaho Code § 19-4404 (1994); Ind.”
People v. Tuadles, 92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6149 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 2× “" (Pen. Code, § 1526, subd. (a).) (3) "A magistrate's `determination of probable cause should be paid great deference by reviewing courts.”
State v. Ettenhofer, 79 P.3d 478 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “4 As amended in 1970, California Penal Code § 1526 prescribed the procedure for an affidavit establishing probable cause, creating a telephonic procedure analogous to ours.”
— Cal. Penal Code § 1526(b) — 6 cases
California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386 (1985).
“See Cal. Penal Code Ann. §§ 1526(b), 1528(b) (West 1982); People v.”
Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013).
“§ 16-82-201 (2005); Cal.Penal Code Ann. § 1526(b) (West 2011); Colo.”
State v. Valencia, 459 A.2d 1149 (N.J. 1983).
“41(c)(2); Cal.Penal Code §§ 1526(b), 1528(b) (West 1982); Ariz.”
— Cal. Penal Code § 1526(b)(2) — 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.