Arrest warrants are legal documents that are issued by a judge or magistrate. A judge or magistrate issues an arrest warrant based on information provided to them by law enforcement or a government prosecutor in a sworn affidavit. A warrant gives law enforcement officers the authority to locate and arrest the individual named in the warrant.
Search warrants are also legal documents issued by a judge or magistrate based on information provided by law enforcement or a government prosecutor. A search warrant gives law enforcement officers the authority to enter and search a particular place or search a person for the purpose of locating and seizing physical items that may be evidence of a crime.
Under California law, a court usually issues an arrest warrant after a criminal charge or charges have been filed. A judge issues what is known in California as bench warrant if a person violates a rule of court, e.g., not showing up in court when required to do so or failing to pay a fine that was ordered as a condition of probation.
A California lawyer would be able to help a person understand the role that arrest and search warrants play in our criminal justice system.
What Is the Purpose of an Arrest Warrant in California?
The purpose of an arrest warrant in California is to provide law enforcement with the legal authority to locate and then detain a person whom they suspect has committed a crime. Law enforcement can hold the person until they can be charged with a criminal offense. In California, it is the practice not to get an arrest warrant after criminal charges have been filed.
Once arrested, a person is brought before a judge. The judge decides whether the person can be released if they post bail or otherwise until a trial can take place.
An arrest warrant should contain the following information:
- A description of the crime, including the date and time, that has been committed with citation to legal authority
- A description of the individual to be arrested because they are alleged to have committed the crime specified in the warrant
- The identification of any victims of the criminal activity
- An order directing police officers to take the perpetrator identified in the warrant into custody.
The arrest warrant gives any and all law enforcement officers the authority to arrest the suspect. The officers who are investigating a certain crime do not have to be the ones who execute the arrest.
The fact that an arrest warrant for a certain individual has been issued is broadcast online both statewide and nationwide through law enforcement databases. If a law enforcement officer checks the person’s identification and arrest record, e.g., during a traffic stop, they learn about the warrant and can arrest them.
What Is the Purpose of a Search Warrant in California?
A search warrant gives law enforcement the authority to enter a place in which the owner has an expectation of privacy because of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Fourth Amendment states as follows:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
In light of this right of privacy conferred on people in the U.S. by the Fourth Amendment, if law enforcement wants to enter a place in which a person has an expectation of privacy, they must obtain a search warrant to do so. There are exceptions to the requirement to get a warrant that are discussed below. However, if no exception applies to the circumstances, law enforcement must obtain a search warrant.
For example, the police may find the body of a person who is deceased. It may appear that the deceased was killed by a violent act, which suggests an illegal homicide. The police would believe that the person is a victim of murder. In the course of their investigation, they find the blood of another person on the clothing of the deceased. The police would suspect that this might be the blood of the perpetrator of the crime.
Meanwhile, a family member of the victim tells the police that the victim was harassed by their ex-partner, who stalked them and sometimes made threats of violence. The police would take this information to a judge and ask the judge to issue a search warrant that would allow them to collect a blood sample or a saliva swab from the ex-partner. Law enforcement would then be able to perform DNA testing of the blood or saliva sample to see if it matches the blood sample found on the victim.
Under normal circumstances, without a valid warrant, or in the absence of circumstances that come within an exception to the warrant requirement, law enforcement cannot get a blood or saliva sample from a person.
What Do Arrest and Search Warrants Have in Common in California?
Both arrest and search warrants can be obtained only if law enforcement or prosecutors present a judge with an affidavit in which they present enough information to establish probable cause. Showing probable cause gives the judge the justification they need to issue a warrant.
Of course, there are exceptions noted below. But exceptions are limited and specific, and without a warrant or circumstances that justify an exception, law enforcement cannot arrest a person or search private locations.
A police officer who has probable cause to conduct a search or arrest a person must know facts based on evidence. The evidence should support the proposition that the person to be arrested committed a specific crime. Or, if the officer seeks a search warrant, the evidence must support the proposition that the officer will find specific, identifiable evidence of a crime in the specific place to be searched.
It is not enough for an officer to say that they think an individual committed a crime or that they have a hunch that maybe evidence can be found in a certain place. The officer must have evidence to support their opinion, and their opinion must be based on facts.
What Are the Differences Between Search Warrants and Arrest Warrants in California?
One of the main differences in search v. arrest warrants is the fact that there are differing exceptions to the requirement that police get a warrant before searching a place or arresting an individual.
The U.S. Supreme Court has carved out several significant exceptions to the requirement that law enforcement must have a valid warrant to conduct a search. These search warrant exceptions are as follows:
- Exigent Circumstances: A police officer may respond to emergency situations that could threaten public safety. In such situations, it simply may not be possible to put together a warrant application, find a judge to consider it and issue a warrant. The delay could lead to serious negative consequences, including the destruction of important evidence. So, if an officer confronts an emergency situation in which they believe that some exigency justifies a warrantless search, they can act accordingly.
- Plain View: If an officer responds to a call and, in the course of their response, sees evidence in plain view, they may seize it. So, for example, an officer could respond to a dwelling where there has been a report of domestic violence. The officer may enter the residence with the permission of the residents to deal with the alleged domestic violence. While standing in the living room, the officer may observe controlled substances and drug paraphernalia lying out in plain view on the coffee table. The officer may seize the controlled substances and paraphernalia as evidence of a crime.
- Search Incident to an Arrest: If the police arrest someone, they can search the person and the area within that person’s immediate control without a warrant. The search would be limited to the area within the reach of the individual.
- The rationale for allowing arrest searches is the search allows officers to ensure their own safety, as they may find weapons on the detainee. It also allows officers to prevent a suspect from destroying evidence. However, while officers can search the person and the area within their reach, more extensive physical searches may require additional justification or a warrant.
- Consent: The owner of a space or location always has the right to voluntarily consent to a search of their space or location. For example, the owner of a car may consent to a roadside search of their car’s trunk. Or, the tenant in a residential unit may give law enforcement consent to search their apartment.
- An individual, e.g., a roommate, who shares a space with others, has common authority and can give consent to a search. Also, if the police reasonably believe that an individual has the authority to consent to a search, the search may be valid, although it later turns out that they in fact did not have the requisite authority.
- Automobile Exceptions: The owner of a vehicle is entitled to a reduced expectation of privacy in their vehicle than they have in their homes and places of business. This is because they are mobile and operate on public roads.
Under the automobile exception, police can search a vehicle without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe it contains evidence of a crime or illegal items, e.g., controlled substances. So a police officer may be able to search the interior of your car and even the trunk if you are stopped for a traffic violation. However, much would depend on the reason for which the police stop you on the road.
- Special Needs: The exception applies when a government, federal or state, conducts searches that are mainly aimed at advancing some special public goal other than criminal law enforcement. The search program must be reasonable when balanced against the public interest in protecting privacy.
For example, local law enforcement agencies sometimes set up drunk-driving checkpoints in which all drivers who drive past a certain point are stopped and checked for signs of drunk driving. If a driver shows signs of intoxication, they may be subjected to testing. Then, if testing shows that the driver is intoxicated, they may be arrested for driving under the influence.
These checkpoints are considered justified, because they take drivers who threaten public safety off our roads and highways.
- Stop and Frisk: Police may detain a person for a brief, investigative stop if they have a reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is engaged in criminal activity or may in the immediate future engage in criminal activity. This standard is lower than probable cause. If the officer also has a reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous, they may perform a frisk.
A frisk is a simple pat-down of a person’s outer clothing. It is strictly protective in nature, and the purpose of it is to find weapons and ensure officer safety. It is not supposed to be treated as a comprehensive search for evidence of a crime.
There are also exceptions to the requirement that law enforcement have a warrant for an arrest. However, the exceptions are somewhat different from those for a search warrant.
One of the most important is when an officer sees a perpetrator committing a crime. In this case, an officer is considered to have probable cause to take the perpetrator of the crime into custody.
In addition, even if an officer has not personally observed a crime in progress, they may have probable cause for an arrest. For example, a police officer may hear a police radio report to the effect that an individual in a dark-colored hoodie and gray pants just robbed a nearby convenience store using a firearm.
The officer is not far away from the store and sees a person dressed in a dark-colored hoodie and gray pants walking fast down the street. The officer has probable cause to stop the individual and conduct a frisk search of them.
If the frisk search reveals that they have a gun and a large sum of cash in their pocket, the officer has probable cause to arrest them. The total circumstances, including the report and the items yielded by the search, establish probable cause for the officer to have a reasonable belief that the person committed the robbery.
One of the most significant differences between search and arrest is the fact that evidence obtained by the police illegally, in violation of the search warrant requirement and allowed exceptions, must be excluded from any trial that follows from it.
The legal rule that requires this result is known as the “exclusionary rule,” and it plays an important role in trial procedure in criminal cases. A California lawyer consultation would help a person understand the exclusionary rule.
However, it is also true that if the police detain a person illegally without an arrest warrant and find and seize evidence as a result of the arrest, the exclusionary rule would apply. The rule would mean that the evidentiary items found as a result of the illegal arrest would not be allowed into evidence in court.
Do I Need a California Lawyer for Warrant Issues?
If you have been arrested and believe it was not legally justified, you want to talk to a California criminal defense lawyer. Your lawyer will review the facts of your arrest and the evidence that the police have. Your lawyer will especially focus on how the police obtained the evidence they have and whether an illegal arrest or search was involved in the seizure of the evidence.
Your lawyer will know how to challenge your arrest and any evidence against you that may have been obtained illegally. You will get the best possible outcome to your criminal case, if you have the expertise of a California criminal defense lawyer to help you.
