Electronic Law Enforcement Interface for
Acquisition of Search Warrants:
“ Communication, Expediency, Justice”

ELIAS is being developed from advice and
support from:
District and Municipal Court Management Association

Web-based application that generates, sends,
and files search warrants
◦ Links officers, prosecutors, and judges in a fully
electronic system.
◦ Allows for generation, review, approval, and filing
of search warrants.
◦ Optional link to court case management systems
for electronic filing with the courts.
◦ Log and data collection of officer warrants for LE
agency statistics.

Warrant Generation

Warrant Review
◦ Users will be able to log into ELIAS using
existing SECTOR profiles.
◦ Officers will select the jurisdiction in
which they are petitioning for a warrant
and then draft the affidavit from a preset
group of text boxes and drop down
menus.
◦ The information will be loaded into a
.pdf document and digitally signed by
the officer.
◦ After (optional) supervisor or prosecutor
review, the selected judge will receive an
automated notice (via phone, text, email
or fax) and be directed to the ELIAS
system to review and grant or deny a
search warrant.
◦ Once the judge has digitally signed the
warrant, the officer can print and serve
the warrant directly from the system.

Warrant Return
◦ After service, the officer completes the return of
service in ELIAS.
◦ Officers have the option of attaching small files to
the return of service if necessary
 e.g. Receipts of Property
◦ The information will be loaded into a .pdf and
digitally signed by the officer.
◦ Depending on the courts preferences, the warrant
will either print for hand filing or be automatically
routed once complete.
Step 1: Officer Generation
Step 2: Officer Review/Submission
Step 3*: Secondary Review by Sgt./Prosecutor
Step 4: Transmission to On call/Selected Judge

Retained
◦ Copy of warrant is
added to packet as
“draft” once
officer/prosecutor
submits to judge.
◦ Stat is retained in
electronic log that
officer submitted
(1) warrant request.

Not Retained
◦ Time taken to
generate warrant
◦ Time taken for
Sgt./Prosecutor to
review warrant.
◦ Any information
on IP addresses
warrant is sent
to/from.
Step 1: Judge Receives Notification
Step 3: Judge Approves Warrant
Step 2: Judge Reviews Warrant
Step 4: Transmission to officer electronically signed
by judge
Step 1: Judge Receives Notification
Step 3: Judge Denies Warrant/Optional
Drop Down Menu for reason
Step 2: Judge Reviews Warrant
Step 4: Transmission to officer notifying them the
the warrant has been denied

Retained
◦ Copy of warrant is
added to packet as
“approved/denied”
once judge
approves OR denies
the warrant (each
time this occurs).
◦ Date/Time warrant
was approved OR
denied saved to this
copy of the warrant.

Not Retained
◦ Time taken to answer the
queue request.
◦ Percentage of success for
judge to answer review
requests.
◦ Any requirement for a
specific reason for denial.
◦ Any documentation as to
how often a judge
approves/denies
warrants.
◦ Any information
identifying the judges
time taken to review the
warrant.
Step 1: Officer Generation
Step 2: Officer Review/Submission
Step 3*: Secondary Review by Sgt./Prosecutor
Step 4: Transmission to Court Email/Jindex/Print
for Hand Filing

Temporarily
Retained (30 days)
◦ Copy of warrant is
added to packet as
“final” once officer
electronically signs
and returns the
warrant.
◦ Date/Time warrant
was returned is
saved to this copy
of the warrant.

Not Retained
◦ Any information
related to officers’
success in serving
warrant by
deadline listed.
◦ Identifying
suspect
information.

ELIAS does not store anything locally.
◦ 30 day database at WSP for “failsafe” temporary
retention of warrant packets.
◦ Database is purged when document hits day 31.
◦ All data is saved by the end user per the court/law
enforcement agency policies and retention
schedule.






Development materials (grant project)
Training curriculum
Data flow diagrams and documentation
Developer names and information
Funding records
Data records related to users within the
system?





Decreases issues in accessing
a judge to review warrants in
a timely manner.
Increases quality of content
in officer affidavits.
Includes training tips within,
set by prosecutors, to assist
officers in documenting best
evidence.
Allows for courts to maintain
an on-call rotation to
enhance access to judges
after-hours and spread the
workload.
Allows for officers to EASILY
petition judges for a warrant
in any jurisdiction in the
state.

Will this require me to install software or download files on my
computer?
◦ No. ELIAS is a fully web-based application that functions through a web
browser. No installation is required.

Will my court be required to link into the electronic bus to file ELIAS
generated warrants?
◦ No. ELIAS allows for site coordinators in the courts to set the system to
require either hand filing, email filing, or electronic bus importing of
search warrants.

Will this be complicated and expensive to train and recertify in order to
use?
◦ No. ELIAS is designed to be simple, efficient, and intuitive for officers and
judges alike. Basic user training is minimal and there is no recertification…
the training tips are built into the system!

How will I be able to petition for warrants jurisdictions outside of where I
work?
◦ ELIAS allows the user to select specific jurisdictions prior to even drafting
the warrant, which will ensure the warrant will be granted where the officer
actually needs it served.

Now – November 2014
◦ Programming and Development
◦ Training Curriculum Development  User Basic and Advanced,
Judge and Officer
◦ User requirement finalization between state judges, prosecutors,
and LEOs

December 2014 – April 2015
◦
◦
◦
◦

Pilot testing
Debugging, testing of the system via blood warrants
Modification and enhancement based on field testing results
Testing warrants through higher courts
May 1, 2015
◦ Live release of ELIAS application state wide
◦ ELIAS training and implementation will be rolled out to agencies in
their order on our interest list

Contact our development team leaders in
your respective fields for more information.
◦ Detective Chris Leyba, Project Manager
 Christopher.leyba@seattle.gov
◦ Courtney Popp, Asst. Project Manager – LEO Training Lead
 Courtney.popp@wsp.wa.gov
◦ Moses Garcia, Prosecutor Liaison
 Moses.garcia@wsp.wa.gov
◦ Scott Bergstedt, Judicial Liaison
 scott@bergstedtlaw.com
Fin.