J. Scott Porter for respondent.
Steven J. Getman for presentment agency.
OPINION OF THE COURT
DENNIS F. BENDER, J. The respondent in this juvenile delinquency proceeding is administered [upon a search warrant application]." (People v Sullivan, 56 NY2d 378, 382 [1982]; see also, People v Holmes, 93 NY2d 889, 890.) Neither CPL 690.35, nor article I, § 12 of the New York State Constitution, nor the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides otherwise. Simply put, the "procedural formality" of swearing before a notary public is not "a sine qua non of the `oath or affirmation' requirement." (People v Sullivan, supra, at 383.) In fact, no swearing or affirming in the traditional sense is even required. An applicant's signed statement containing the language of Penal Law § 210.45 that making false statements is punishable will suffice. (People v Sullivan, supra .) Notably, however, a statement with the Penal Law § 210.45 warning is, by definition, an oath. CPL 1.20 (38) states that an oath "includes an affirmation and every other mode authorized by law of attesting to the truth of that which is stated." (Emphasis added.) A statement with a Penal Law § 210.45 notice clearly falls within these parameters. With equal clarity, the method utilized in the within matter does not. In short, the presentment agency's argument fails not because of the form of the oath administered or the manner in which it was administered, but because it was not administered by anyone entitled to do so. Police officers are authorized to administer oaths to others in certain circumstances (see, e.g., CPL 100.30 [1] [b]; Vehicle and Traffic Law § 208). No statutory provision exists relative to search warrants, however, and no authority to administer oaths should be construed without statutory authorization. (People v Polle, 9 NY2d 349.) The effect, then, is that whatever the intent or belief of the officers, no oath was administered. Unlike the flexibility allowed in the form and administration of the oath, none exists in the requirement that the application be, in fact, under oath. The motion to suppress all evidence seized pursuant to the warrant and any other evidence derivatively seized is hereby granted upon the ground the warrant application was not under oath. All other motions to suppress the evidence seized are denied as moot. Any noncontraband property seized shall be returned forthwith.