At a Motion to Suppress hearing in this case, Jason Schatz prevailed and obtained an order excluding the Defendant’s .24 breath test at trial. Jason filed a Motion to Suppress the Defendant’s breath test arguing that the Defendant’s consent to the breath test was coerced by the officer and was a result of his numerous and repeated threats to “write a warrant for her blood” and to “get a warrant.” What the officer failed to advise the Defendant was that the warrant was not automatic and that the warrant would have to be submitted to the judge to determine if there was sufficient probable cause to issue the warrant. Instead, the officer made it sound to the Defendant that he could write the warrant himself and that it would automatically be issued without any judicial determination of probable cause to issue the warrant. as required by the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The video obtained from the officer’s patrol car video camera was particularly helpful in proving that the officer had made repeated threats to use a warrant to draw the Defendant’s blood if she refused the breath test. The moral of this story is that warrants are not automatic, and it is not up to the officer to write the warrant. In fact, a request for a warrant must be submitted to a judge, and a warrant will only be issued based on a finding by the judge of probable cause. An officer’s threat to obtain a warrant without proper explanation to the Defendant may render the Defendant’s consent involuntary and result in the suppression of the test.