The issuing judicial officer did not put the affiant under oath when talking to him, but the affidavit presented to the magistrate said it was under oath, and that\u2019s good enough for the \u201coath or affirmation requirement.\u201d Besides, the GFE would suffice. United States v. Dedeaux, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110307 (N.D. Ind. August 6, 2013):<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
“[A] person may be under oath even though that person has not formally taken an oath by raising a hand and reciting formulaic words,” Brooks, 285 F.3d at 1106, and a law enforcement officer “who manifests an intention to be under oath is in fact under oath,” id. at 1105 (collecting cases). The same factors that the Court cited in its Opinion and Order in Scott to support its finding that law enforcement officers had complied with the Fourth Amendment’s oath or affirmation requirement are present in this case. As in Scott, Detective Deshaies explicitly swore to the truth of his statements in the affidavit in its opening line. As in Scott, Detective Deshaies referred to himself on multiple occasions as an “Affiant.” As in Scott, immediately below Detective Deshaies’s signature is a statement of the sworn nature of the contents of the affidavit. In the Court’s view, these statements are sufficient indicia of Detective Deshaies’s intent to be under oath when he prepared and signed the affidavit.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading