In Smith v. State, 207 S.W.3d 787 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006), the court of criminal appeals held that an officer's failure to sign a probable cause affidavit did not invalidate a warrant if other evidence could prove that the officer swore to the facts contained in the affidavit before the issuing magistrate. Id. at 793. Recognizing that the purpose of the oath is to call upon the affiant's sense of moral duty to tell the truth, the court reasoned that it is the act of swearing, not the signature itself, that is essential to the validity of the affidavit. Id. at 792. The court also expressed that it was important for the law to retain some flexibility in the face of technological advances: "For example, the federal courts and some state courts, now permit telephonic search warrants, and one can foresee the day in which search warrants might be obtained via e-mail or a recorded video conference with a magistrate located many miles away. In a state as large as Texas, such innovations should not be foreclosed by the requirement of a signed affidavit if the officer's oath can be memorialized by other, equally satisfactory, means. We leave those potential future changes to the Texas Legislature, but we should not stand in the way of the future by declaring that all affidavits, which are properly sworn to but unsigned, are necessarily invalid." Id. at 792-93