Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-1425_cb8e.pdf
Page Number: 15.0

Cite as:  569 U. S. ____ (2013) 

11 

Opinion of the Court 

advances  in  the  47  years  since  Schmerber  was  decided 
that allow for the more expeditious processing of warrant
applications,  particularly  in  contexts  like  drunk-driving
investigations  where  the  evidence  offered  to  establish 
probable  cause  is  simple.    The  Federal  Rules  of  Criminal 
Procedure were amended in 1977 to permit federal magis­
trate judges to issue a warrant based on sworn testimony
communicated by telephone.  See 91 Stat. 319.  As amended, 
the  law  now  allows  a  federal  magistrate  judge  to  con- 
sider  “information  communicated  by  telephone  or  other 
reliable  electronic  means.”    Fed.  Rule  Crim.  Proc.  4.1. 
States have also innovated.  Well over a majority of States
allow  police  officers  or  prosecutors  to  apply  for  search
warrants  remotely  through  various  means,  including
telephonic or radio communication, electronic communica­
tion such as e-mail, and video conferencing.4  And in addi­

—————— 

4 See  Ala.  Rule  Crim.  Proc. 3.8(b) 

(2012–2013);  Alaska  Stat. 
§12.35.015 (2012); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§13–3914(C), 13–3915(D), (E) 
(West 2010); Ark. Code Ann. §16–82–201 (2005); Cal. Penal Code Ann.
§1526(b)  (West  2011);  Colo.  Rule  Crim.  Proc.  41(c)(3)  (2012);  Ga.  Code
Ann. §17–5–21.1 (2008); Haw. Rules Penal Proc. 41(h)–(i) (2013); Idaho 
Code  §§19–4404,  19–4406  (Lexis  2004);  Ind.  Code  §35–33–5–8  (2012); 
Iowa Code §§321J.10(3), 462A.14D(3) (2009) (limited to specific circum­
stances  involving  accidents);  Kan.  Stat.  Ann.  §§22–2502(a),  22–2504
(2011 Cum. Supp.); La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., Arts. 162.1(B), (D) (West
2003);  Mich.  Comp.  Laws  Ann.  §§780.651(2)–(6)  (West  2006);  Minn. 
Rules  Crim.  Proc.  33.05,  36.01–36.08  (2010  and  Supp.  2013);  Mont.
Code Ann. §§46–5–221, 46–5–222 (2012);  Neb. Rev. Stat. §§29–814.01, 
29–814.03,  29–814.05  (2008);  Nev.  Rev.  Stat.  §§179.045(2),  (4)  (2011);
N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §595–A:4–a (Lexis Supp. 2012); N. J. Rule Crim. 
Proc. 3:5–3(b) (2013); N. M. Rules Crim. Proc. 5–211(F)(3), (G)(3) (Supp. 
2012);  N. Y.  Crim.  Proc.  Law  Ann.  §§690.35(1),  690.36(1),  690.40(3),
690.45(1), (2) (West 2009); N. C. Gen. Stat. Ann. §15A–245(a)(3) (Lexis
2011);  N. D.  Rules  Crim.  Proc.  41(c)(2)–(3)  (2012–2013);  Ohio  Rules 
Crim.  Proc.  41(C)(1)–(2)  (2011);  Okla.  Stat.  Ann.,  Tit.  22,  §§1223.1, 
1225(B) (West 2011); Ore. Rev. Stat. §§133.545(5)–(6) (2011); Pa. Rules 
Crim. Proc. 203(A), (C) (2012); S. D. Codified Laws §§23A–35–4.2, 23A–
35–5,  23A–35–6  (2004);  Utah  Rule  Crim.  Proc. 40(l)  (2012);  Vt.  Rules
Crim. Proc. 41(c)(4), (g)(2) (Supp. 2012); Va. Code Ann. §19.2–54 (Lexis