Judges Approve Search Warrants At Alarming Speeds, Study Finds

A groundbreaking empirical analysis of Utah’s electronic warrant system shows judges approving search warrants at alarming speeds—half of all decisions happen in just over three minutes, and one in ten take less than a minute. This largest-ever quantitative study of warrants raises urgent questions: Is digital efficiency in our justice system eroding constitutional protections? The findings reveal complex pressures facing modern courts and suggest the answer isn’t simple.

The Digital Revolution in Criminal Justice

Electronic warrant systems have completely transformed how law enforcement seeks judicial approval for searches and seizures nationwide. What once meant physical trips to courthouses and face-to-face meetings with judges now happens through smartphone apps and digital signatures—twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. Utah’s e-warrant system, launched in 2007, shows this technological revolution in action. But new research suggests this convenience carries a constitutional price.

Researchers Miguel F. P. de Figueiredo of the University of Connecticut School of Law, Brett Hashimoto of Brigham Young University’s Department of Linguistics, and Dane Thorley of Brigham Young University Law School conducted a comprehensive three-year study, just published in the Harvard Law Review. They analyzed more than 33,000 warrant applications processed through Utah’s digital system between 2017 and 2020. Their findings reveal a troubling picture: judicial review that prioritizes speed over scrutiny, with implications reaching far beyond Utah.

The Numbers Behind Digital Justice

The research exposes several alarming statistics about modern warrant review. Judges take a median time of just 3 minutes and 3 seconds to open, read, evaluate, and if necessary, redraft warrant applications before approval. Even more concerning: approximately ten percent of all warrants—3,684 cases—were processed in sixty seconds or less.

In combination with warrant approval rates, this tells an even more troubling story: some ninety-three percent of warrants get approved on first submission, with eventual approval exceeding ninety-eight percent. This near-universal approval suggests the constitutional requirement for “neutral and detached” judicial review may exist more in theory than practice in our digital age. A closer look by the authors of a random sample of approved warrants revealed questionable approvals, suggesting the high approval rate is not because of the submitted warrants all meriting approval.

The study found that judges conducted a very perfunctory read of the warrants. In examining the connection between warrant length and review time, the authors found that every additional 600 words added one minute of review time, a reading speed that is unlikely for anyone but the fastest of readers to complete with high comprehension. This challenges assumptions that judges read warrant applications carefully, regardless of their complexity or the severity of alleged crimes. The study also calls into question the efficacy of U.S. Supreme Court decisions requiring warrants for blood draws in most circumstances and in other instances, when their review is so cursory.

Technology’s Double-Edged Sword

Electronic warrant systems like Utah’s were originally designed to tackle genuine time- sensitive situations, especially DUI cases where blood alcohol evidence naturally breaks down over time. The technology has clearly boosted efficiency—Utah handled some 13,000 warrant applications in 2019 alone.

But the research reveals that this technological convenience may have triggered unintended consequences. The ability to submit and review warrants from anywhere, anytime has made rapid-fire decision-making feel normal—even when it clashes with constitutional principles. As the researchers point out, warrants exist as a crucial check on police power, with the U.S. Constitution requiring review by a neutral and detached magistrate.

Judicial Pressures and Constraints

The study’s authors carefully acknowledge the complex pressures that modern judges face, stressing that their findings don’t necessarily reflect “poor” judging but more likely stem from systematic institutional problems. State court judges are notoriously under-resourced and juggle growing caseloads that create serious time constraints. During warrant review duty—often called “Signing Week” in Utah—judges simultaneously manage arrest warrants, protective orders, first appearances and various other urgent matters.

The research also exposes the cognitive challenges that come with reviewing highly formulaic, repetitive documents. Studies show that while legal professionals read faster than average citizens, increased reading speed typically means decreased comprehension, especially for technical details. This creates a troubling paradox: the very efficiency that makes e-warrant systems attractive may actually undermine their constitutional purpose.

What’s more, the ex-parte nature of warrant review—where only law enforcement’s side gets heard—combined with the inevitable “repeat play” between the same officers and judges, may foster relationships that sway decision-making. These factors don’t necessarily point to judicial wrongdoing, but they do highlight systemic pressures that can compromise the review process, even when judges genuinely try to fulfill their constitutional duties.

Beyond DUI: The Scope of the Problem

You might think rapid approvals stem mainly from routine cases like DUI blood draws, but the research shows this problem spans all warrant categories. Even when researchers removed DUI warrants from their analysis, median review times only jumped by 21 seconds. Warrants for violent crimes, property crimes, and drug offenses all showed remarkably similar processing speeds, which suggests that case complexity barely affects how much attention judges give each application.

The study included a qualitative analysis of randomly selected warrant applications and uncovered troubling examples of inadequate review, including “cases where approved warrants were unconstitutionally vague, lacked corroboration of evidence used as the basis for probable cause, or failed to catch important errors in the affidavit.”

National Implications of Utah’s Experience

Utah’s system isn’t unique—44 states currently use some form of electronic warrant technology. This means the patterns observed in Utah likely represent a national phenomenon rather than an isolated problem. The research provides the first comprehensive empirical look at how these systems actually work, offering insights that could reshape Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.

The findings carry particular weight given recent high-profile cases involving warrant failures, including the deaths of Breonna Taylor and Amir Locke. Both cases involved warrants that subsequent investigations revealed contained perjured statements— statements that reviewing judges failed to catch. While these tragedies highlighted individual failures, the Utah research suggests they may reflect broader systemic issues with warrant review processes nationwide.

Balancing Efficiency and Rights

The research doesn’t call for abandoning electronic warrant systems but rather pushes for reforms that could preserve their efficiency while strengthening constitutional protections. Potential solutions include:

• Implementing minimum review time
• Providing judges with better training on warrant evaluation
• Creating feedback mechanisms so judges learn about the success rates of warrants they approve
• Developing technological tools that could flag potentially problematic warrant applications

The study also highlights the need for greater transparency in warrant processes. Currently, most states don’t systematically track warrant approval rates, review times, or success rates, making it impossible to assess whether the constitutional promise of judicial review is actually being fulfilled.

The researchers emphasize that their findings reflect institutional failures rather than individual judicial shortcomings. Judges face real resource constraints, overwhelming dockets, and time pressures that help explain rapid decision-making patterns. The electronic warrant system itself, while improving efficiency, may inadvertently encourage speed over scrutiny.

However, acknowledging these constraints doesn’t diminish the constitutional concerns the research raises. The Fourth Amendment’s promise of meaningful judicial oversight can’t be fulfilled if institutional pressures systematically undermine the review process, regardless of judges’ intentions or capabilities.

The Technology Industry’s Role

For technology companies developing judicial software, the Utah research presents both challenges and opportunities. Future e-warrant systems could incorporate features designed to promote more thorough review, such as:

• Built-in timing alerts
• Complexity scoring algorithms
• Randomized quality control measures

The goal would be maintaining the efficiency that makes these systems valuable while ensuring they support rather than undermine constitutional protections.

The findings also suggest that metrics commonly used to evaluate judicial efficiency— such as case processing speed—may not align with constitutional requirements for meaningful review. Technology developers and court administrators may need to reconsider how they measure and incentivize judicial performance in the digital age.

Rethinking Digital Justice

The Utah warrant study reveals a justice system where constitutional protections may be more illusory than real, despite technological advances that have made the warrant process more efficient than ever before. While judges face legitimate pressures that help explain rapid decision-making, the near-universal approval rates and extremely brief review times suggest that the Fourth Amendment’s promise of meaningful judicial oversight isn’t being fulfilled in practice.

The research by de Figueiredo, Hashimoto, and Thorley serves as a crucial wake-up call: technological solutions alone cannot solve constitutional problems. Instead, it demands a more thoughtful approach to judicial technology that prioritizes the quality of constitutional protections alongside the speed of judicial processing.

As electronic warrant systems continue to proliferate across the country, policymakers, technologists and legal professionals must grapple with fundamental questions about how to preserve constitutional rights in an increasingly digital justice system.

The challenge isn’t simply technological but institutional—requiring reforms that acknowledge both the legitimate needs of law enforcement and the courts while ensuring that efficiency doesn’t come at the expense of constitutional protections. In an era where technology increasingly mediates the relationship between citizens and their government, ensuring that digital tools serve constitutional values rather than undermining them may be one of the most important challenges facing the American justice system.