I've briefly gone through the caselaw database, but I've got a D atty telling me that the conclusory statements within the search warrant affidavit, i.e. "6 HGN clues" "8 W/T clues" etc.

Any need for the affiant to list out the specific names of the tests and clues?

I don’t think the use of abbreviations makes a statement conclusory. Conclusory statements put forth facts without stating the basis of the fact. Is a magistrate more likely to know what ‘horizontal gaze nystagmus’ means versus ‘HGN’? They are both terms that only mean something to a person trained in FST’s – so it doesn’t really matter what you call it, right? What’s important to a magistrate’s determination of PC isn’t the name of the test, but that a test was conducted by a trained police officer and that the test showed 6 clues of intoxication.

Even if the judge does find the use of abbreviations to be conclusory, then the question is whether the affidavit still supports a determination of PC if the conclusory statements are not considered. Maybe the court doesn’t consider the affidavit’s statements about FST’s. Other statements in the affidavit of the suspected person’s odor of alcohol, the RBG eyes, unsteady balance, slurred speech, admission to drinking two beers, bad driving, etc. will still support a PC finding by an issuing magistrate.

Review of a magistrate’s determination should be highly deferential.

Hogan v. State, 329 SW3d 90, is the top case my quick search turned up.

Hope this helps.

Thanks for the heads up.

The "issue" is whether or not the officer has to spell out SFST clues, i.e. "I performed the W/T test, and subject missed heel to toe, failed to maintain start position, etc." as opposed to "subject performed the W/T test, and I observed 8 clues."

I'll dive into some caselaw, but thank you for the starting point. Much appreciated.

From a perspective of best practice, I would advise the officers to put the specific clues in the PC affidavit when possible.

This doesn't rise to the level of conclusory. The "conclusion" that is reached is that Defendant is, in fact, intoxicated. That is the statement that cannot be stated in conclusory fashion without supporting facts. Whether the specific clues are named or the his SFST "score" is given, that is a fact which supports the final conclusion of intoxication.