It is 02:14. The stop started as a tag light. Now there is the odor, the hand that went under the seat before the window came down, and a phone on the console lighting up with texts about the package. You have probable cause. You also have a form with more than twenty blanks, a magistrate who will read every one of them, and a defense attorney, months from now, who will read them harder.
This is the moment Officer One was built for. Here is exactly what the warrant builder does with it, and exactly what it refuses to do.
Talk the way you would on the radio
Open the warrant door, pick the kind, and talk. Not a form voice. Your voice. The stop, the odor, the vehicle, the phone, the training that lets you say what that odor was.
Every blank the form needs sits above the transcript as a row of short chips: Court, County, Case number, your name, rank, agency, years on, training, the crime and the statute, the grounds, the place, the items, probable cause, nexus, the source. A vehicle warrant adds year, make, model, color, plate, VIN. A phone warrant adds the make, the model, the number. A DUI blood-draw warrant has its own packet, with the sample type, the refusal, and the observation period.
The chips are the instrument for the one question you actually have at 02:14: am I done talking? Gray means nothing has it. The moment your words land, the chip you covered lights as heard, seconds before the server answers, so you can hear yourself cover the form. Green means the warrant carries it. Amber means a proposal is waiting on you.
Four kinds of warrant
Each kind carries the fields its own law cares about.
- Premises. The address and a description that would let a stranger find the place, because particularity is the thing a premises warrant lives or dies on. Groh v. Ramirez is the case where a warrant that described nothing to be seized was no warrant at all.
- Vehicle. Year, make, model, color, plate, VIN, and where the vehicle is right now, since the warrant follows the car, not the driveway.
- Phone. Make, model, number, and what on the phone you are after. Riley v. California is why the phone gets its own warrant and not a search incident to arrest.
- DUI blood draw. Missouri v. McNeely is why the packet exists: the dissipation of alcohol is not an exigency by itself, so the warrant is the clean path, and the packet asks for the sample type, the refusal, and the clock.
A proposal is not a field
This is the part that separates a search warrant app from a warrant affidavit you can defend.
Everything the model pulls out of your words lands as a proposal, next to the blank it belongs to, with how sure the model was. Nothing enters the warrant until you tap Confirm. You can reject a proposal. You can tap the value and reword it, in which case your words go in and theirs go on the record as not used. The record keeps all of it: what was proposed, what you applied, what you rejected, and when.
Why so stubborn about it? Because you are the affiant. A search warrant affidavit is sworn, and software cannot swear. Under Franks v. Delaware, a false statement made knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the truth, can void the warrant, and an officer who signs machine text without reading it is handing the defense that argument. So the design rule is one sentence, and it is on the site, in the app, and in the footer of every page it prints: AI proposes. The officer commits.
Nothing silent-applies. Ever. If a tool fills a sworn document while you are not looking, it is not a tool you want your name under.
The form is the form
Two ways the paper comes out.
The first is the state template. Every state on the shelf ships with a search warrant template built from that state’s own rule: the constitution’s particularity requirement, the statute, and the court rule, cited in the app. Where a state is not on the shelf yet, the builder works from a universal Fourth Amendment template and says so.
The second is your court’s own PDF. Upload the blank your judge actually signs, once. The app reads its blanks, matches them to the fields it already knows, and from then on every warrant you build lands on the judge’s exact form, in the judge’s exact boxes. The reading runs on its own, usually two to five minutes, with the clock on the card, so you can pocket the phone and come back to it.
Two honest rules ride with that. If the app could not read a form, the card says so and a ticket opens by itself; a person prepares that form by hand and checks back with you in the app. And the first time any new court form is read, a person on our side looks at how it was read within a day, because a form that filled the wrong boxes and reported success is worse than one that failed. You get told either way.
What the judge reads at the bottom
Every warrant PDF and every narrative export carries a footer that says what happened. The national version reads, in substance: voice-extraction AI helped prepare this document for the named officer and agency; the officer has personally reviewed it, attests it is true and correct, and bears sole responsibility for its accuracy and legal sufficiency; not legal advice.
California officers get the exact sentence SB 524 requires on every page of an AI-assisted report, with the program identified by name, because that law took effect on the first day of 2026 and it is the strictest one on the books. Other states are moving the same direction, and the app’s AI report rules door keeps the list.
The footer is not a disclaimer to hide behind. It is the same thing the chips and the proposals are: a record that a person made every decision on the page.
What it never claims
An AI search warrant tool that oversells itself will get an officer hurt in court. So these lines are drawn on purpose.
- It never says the draft is probable cause. Probable cause is what you saw, smelled, heard, and can articulate. The builder helps you put it in the right box.
- It never says a judge must accept the form. Judges reject warrants, and they should be able to.
- It never checks the statute against your facts and tells you the search is good. What’s-the-charge, a different door, lays out elements as reference. Neither door decides.
- It never files anything. You print, you swear before the magistrate, you serve.
- It never invents. Extraction is transcript to fields, nothing else. Where it drafts prose, such as a short reason, the prose is labeled and waits for your review like everything else.
Your record, kept
The proposals are kept. The original draft is kept. Which revision of which prompt produced each one is stamped on the output, so if a court ever asks which version of the software helped with a warrant from last spring, there is an answer. A sealed warrant is sealed; nothing edits it afterward.
Radio shorthand gets expanded where it must be. BM becomes Black male in the affidavit, GOA becomes gone on arrival, because a sworn document is read by people who never worked a radio. Ten-codes are left alone on purpose. Outside 10-4 they change meaning two counties apart, and a tool that guessed would be guessing in a sworn statement.
Everything you make stays on your account, readable and exportable, whether or not you keep paying.
Back to 02:14
Kind: vehicle. Talk through the stop, the odor, the hand under the seat, the texts on the console, the training. Watch the chips. Read every proposal. Confirm what is true, reject what is not, reword what is close. Choose the state template or your court’s form. Print. Swear.
How long it takes depends on your stop, and you will notice we never put a number on it. What we promise is narrower and worth more: every word on that page is yours, and the paper shows it.