When and Why a Warrant of Arrest is Needed: Legal and Practical Aspects

The requirement for a warrant of arrest to detain a suspect varies across jurisdictions and legal frameworks. In some instances, especially during emergencies or in specific circumstances, a warrant may not be strictly required. This article discusses the legal and practical aspects of when a warrant is or is not needed to arrest a person who has committed a crime.

General Legal Standards in Canada

In Canada, and particularly in states like Indiana in the United States, the law allows for certain circumstances where a person can be arrested without a warrant. For example, in Canada, the police can arrest individuals who have just committed a crime, are in the act of committing a crime, or are fleeing the scene of a crime. This notion of 'probable cause' or immediate threat to public safety can justify an immediate arrest without a warrant.

Legal Requirements in Indiana

According to Indiana's laws, an officer can arrest a suspect for a felony if there is probable cause or if the officer has a warrant identifying the suspect. For misdemeanor offenses, an officer can arrest the suspect if they witness the crime or have an arrest warrant or probable cause for one of the "misdemeanor exception" crimes.

In both situations, if the officer makes an arrest without a warrant, the arrest must be reviewed by a judge within 24 hours. This ensures that there was sufficient evidence and justification for the arrest, thereby avoiding false accusations of wrongful arrest.

Practical Implications

While it is not always required, a warrant of arrest provides a significant advantage to law enforcement. It offers complete freedom to proceed with an arrest without the need to present the case to a judge immediately. However, the absence of a warrant can complicate matters significantly.

Without a warrant, the suspect must be charged and the details of the arrest, including the level of force used, must be presented to the judge. Failure to provide sufficient evidence or justifications can result in the charges being dropped or the suspect being released. Given the complexity and legal scrutiny involved, it is exceptionally rare for officers to arrest someone without a warrant unless they have substantial evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

There have been very few instances of warrantless arrests in major urban areas such as New York City (NYC), Detroit, and San Francisco. Over the last 20 years, the NYPD has done this only 3 times, the Detroit PD once, and the San Francisco PD twice. These cases were often significant, involving high-profile suspects or situations requiring immediate action to prevent further harm or evidence tampering.

Conclusion

In summary, while a warrant of arrest is not always necessary, it is a crucial tool for law enforcement to ensure that arrests are based on solid legal grounds. The absence of a warrant can lead to delays, legal challenges, and, ultimately, the release of the suspect. Given the potential complications and risks involved, it is generally advisable for officers to obtain a warrant when feasible, unless exceptional circumstances necessitate immediate action.

Key Points:

Probable cause can justify an immediate arrest without a warrant in situations like catching a suspect in the act or soon after committing a crime. In states like Indiana, officers must either have probable cause, a warrant, or witness the crime to make a warrantless arrest. Without a warrant, the arrest must be reviewed by a judge within 24 hours, which can lead to legal complications. Rare cases involving significant evidence or urgent situations have led to warrantless arrests, but they are exceptional.