RULE 4. ARREST WARRANT OR SUMMONS UPON COMPLAINT
(1) Warrant. If
it appears to the magistrate from the complaint, and from any affidavit filed with the complaint, that there is probable cause to believe that a criminal offense has been committed by the defendant, a warrant for the arrest of the defendant upon the complaint shall issue the magistrate must issue an arrest warrant to any an officer authorized by law to execute it. [Except as provided in subdivision (a)(2).] The finding of probable cause shall must be based upon evidence, which may be hearsay in whole or in part, provided there is a substantial basis for believing the source of the hearsay to be credible and for believing that there is a factual basis for the information furnished. Before ruling on a request for a warrant, the magistrate may examine under oath the complainant and any other witnesses produced, in which case the proceedings shall must be recorded by a court reporter or recording equipment. If the magistrate before whom the complaint is made is someone other than a person has not been admitted to practice law in this State, he shall not issue a warrant A magistrate who has not been admitted to practice law in this State may not issue a warrant until the complaint has been approved by the prosecuting attorney. If it appears to the magistrate from the complaint or other written evidence submitted to him that the accused is likely to abscond before the prosecuting attorney can approve the complaint, and the magistrate so certifies on the complaint, the magistrate may issue a warrant may issue without approval of the prosecuting attorney.
A summons The magistrate may issue a summons in lieu of a warrant if the magistrate has reason to believe that the defendant will appear in response to it, or if the defendant is a corporation.
(3) Failure of Defendant to Appear After Summons. If a defendant
who has been duly summoned fails to appear in response to a summons or there is reasonable cause to believe that he the defendant will fail to appear, a magistrate must issue an arrest warrant of arrest shall issue. If a defendant corporation fails to appear after having been duly summoned in response to a summons, a plea of not guilty shall be entered by the a magistrate if he who is empowered to try the offense for which the summons was issued must enter a plea of not guilty and he may proceed to trial and judgment without further process; if the a magistrate who is not so empowered he shall must proceed as though the defendant had appeared.
(4) Additional Warrants or Summonses. A magistrate may issue more
More than one warrant or summons may issue on the same complaint.
The A warrant shall be must:
(A) be in writing, in the name of the State of
ND North Dakota; ,and
(B) be signed by the issuing magistrate with the title of the magistrate's
It shall state the date of issuance and the municipality or county where issued;
It shall specify the name of the defendant contain the defendant's name or, if his name it is unknown, a ny a name or description by which he the defendant can be identified with reasonable certainty .;
It shall describe the offense charged against the defendant;
It shall command that the defendant be arrested and brought before the nearest available magistrate.
The warrant may also have endorsed upon it the recommended or acceptable amount of bail
recommended or acceptable if the offense is bailable.
(2) Summons. A summons
shall must be in the same form as the warrant except that it shall summon must require the defendant to appear before the magistrate issuing it or another magistrate therein designated a magistrate at a stated time and place and shall must inform the defendant that if he fails to appear, a warrant for his arrest will issue.
(c) Execution; Service.
(1) Execution of Warrant. The warrant
shall be is directed to all peace officers of this State and shall may be executed only by a peace officer. It shall be is executed by the arrest of the defendant and may be executed in any county of the State by any peace officer of this State. The officer need not have the warrant in his possession at the time of the arrest, but if he has a warrant, or a copy thereof at that time, he shall Upon arrest, an officer possessing the warrant must show it to the defendant immediately upon request. If the officer does not have possess the warrant or a copy thereof in his possession at the time of the arrest, he shall then the officer must inform the defendant of the warrant's existence and of the offense charged and of the fact that a warrant has been issued, and upon at the defendant's request he shall must show the warrant or a copy thereof to the defendant as soon as possible.
(2) Service of Summons. The summons
shall must be served in the manner provided for service of a summons in a civil action. It may be served by any Any person authorized to serve a summons in a civil action may serve a summons.
The officer After executing a warrant, the officer shall make return thereof must return it to the magistrate before whom the defendant is brought pursuant to in accordance with Rule 5. At the request of the prosecuting attorney an unexecuted warrant shall must be returned to and canceled by the magistrate who issued it and who shall cancel it.
On or before the return day the The person to whom a summons is delivered for service shall make return thereof must return it to the magistrate before whom the summons is returnable on or before the return day.
(3) At the request of the prosecuting attorney made while a complaint is pending,
a warrant returned unexecuted and not canceled, or a summons returned unserved, or a duplicate thereof, may be delivered by the magistrate a magistrate may deliver an unexecuted warrant, an unserved summons, or a copy of the warrant or summons to a peace officer for execution or service.
(e) Defective Warrant or Summons; Amendment. No person arrested under a warrant or appearing in response to a summons
shall may be discharged from custody or dismissed because of any informality in the warrant or summons, but the warrant or summons may be amended so as to remedy the informality.
Rule 4 was amended, effective ___________.
Subdivision (a) is
adapted primarily derived from the Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure [48 F.R.D. 553 (1970).] Fed.R.Civ.P. 4. The most important aspects aspect of Rule 4 subdivision (a) is the provision that a warrant for arrest may issue under this Rule rule only if it appears from the complaint, from an examination under oath, or from any affidavit filed with the complaint, that there is probable cause for the magistrate to believe that a criminal offense has been committed by the defendant.
Subdivision (a) further provides that a warrant or summons may issue on the basis of hearsay evidence provided the magistrate has adequate reason to believe that the hearsay information is both credible (truthful) and reliable (accurate). These provisions are deemed to be declaratory of existing law. The probable-cause provision must be read in light of the Fourth Amendment.
[See Giordenello v. United States, 357 U.S. 480, 78 S. Ct. 1245, 2 L.Ed. 2d 1503 (1958), and Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 112 n. 3, 84 S. Ct. 1509, 1513 n. 3, 12 L.Ed. 2d 723 (1964).] The provision for hearsay merely prescribes the standard of credibility and reliability. It does not attempt to identify the situations in which evidence in the complaint is in fact adequate to meet the twin tests of credibility and reliability. This is an issue which must be dealt with on a case-to-case basis, taking into account the unlimited variations and sources of information and the opportunity of the informant to perceive accurately the factual data which he furnishes. [See the Advisory Committee Notes of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Proposed Amendment January 1970, page 7, 48 F.R.D. 555, 558 (1970).]"
Subdivision (a) makes clear that the magistrate may require the complainant to appear personally and may examine him or witnesses to determine whether probable cause exists.
[See the American Law Institute, Model Code Pre-Arraignment Procedure, T. D. No. 1, Sec. 6.03 (1966).] If the magistrate does hear from the complainant or witnesses, the testimony must be recorded. This is to insure that there exists an adequate basis for reviewing the propriety of the issuance of the warrant, if, for example, its issuance should be attacked upon a subsequent motion to suppress evidence seized incident to the arrest. Subdivision (a) is also intended to make it possible for the magistrate to issue a summons in lieu of an arrest warrant even though not requested to do so by the prosecuting attorney.
Subdivision (a) also provides that where the magistrate is someone other than a person admitted to practice law in this State, he shall not issue a warrant until the complaint has been approved by the prosecuting attorney. This provision is intended to guard against non-law-trained magistrates, who because of their lack of legal expertise may have a problem with the requirement of probable cause. Subdivision (a), however, does provide that a warrant may be issued by such magistrate without the approval of the prosecuting attorney where the magistrate reasonably believes that the accused is likely to abscond the jurisdiction before the prosecuting attorney can approve the complaint, provided the magistrate so certifies on the complaint.
Subsection Paragraph (a)(2) provides the magistrate with some latitude in the exercise of discretion to issue the summons in cases where he reasonably believes that the defendant will appear in response to the summons. Subsection Paragraph (a)(2) also provides for the magistrate to issue a summons rather than a warrant where the defendant is a corporation. It provides that a summons will issue to a corporate defendant because as a practical matter it is not literally possible to make an arrest. Furthermore, the probability is that the corporation will appear and that the crime is not one of violence. Subsection Paragraph (a)(3) provides a remedy in cases where the defendant fails to answer the summons. It follows the provisions of both Fed.R.Crim.P. 4 (a) , and the Model Code of Pre-Arraignment Procedure , Sec. 6.04(4), T.D. No. 1 (1966). This Subsection paragraph also provides for anticipatory remedy where there is failure of the summonee to appear. Subsection Paragraph (a)(4) provides for the issuance of more than one warrant or summons on the same complaint. The provision for issuance of additional warrants on the same complaint embodies the practice provided in Fed.R.Crim.P. 4(a). When a complaint names several defendants it may be desirable to issue separate warrants to each defendant in order to facilitate service and return, especially if the defendants are apprehended at different times and places. Subsection Paragraph (b)(1) describes the form of the warrant. This Subsection paragraph requires that the warrant be in writing, that it be in the name of the State of North Dakota, and that it be signed by the issuing magistrate with the title of his office. This differs from Fed.R.Crim.P. 4(b), in that the Federal Rule federal rule does not provide for the warrant to be in writing nor does it provide that it be in the name of the jurisdiction. The Federal Rule federal rule further differs in that it does not require that the signature of the issuing officer bear that officer's title, nor does it state the date when issued and the municipality or county where issued. The provision for the issuance of a warrant contemplates that the warrant will be issued in counties other than where the offense occurred.
The provision that the warrant be in the name of the State of North Dakota or in the name of a municipality, if the violation of a municipal ordinance is charged, is consistent with these
Rules rules in providing for the issuance of a warrant for violations of municipal ordinances which are deemed criminal in nature. The language which requires that the warrant specify the name of the defendant is in keeping with N.D.C.C. § 29-05-08. However, the Rule deviates from the statute in that it permits a description by which the defendant reasonably can be identified. The provision for description of the offense charged also is in keeping with Section 29-05-08, which satisfies the constitutional requirement that notice be given to the defendant of the offense with which he is charged.
The final provision of
this Subsection paragraph (b)(1) indicates that bail may be endorsed upon the warrant. The provision that a recommendation of an amount of bail acceptable be included in the warrant reflects the notion that the magistrate issuing the warrant is in a better position to determine the bail requirement than would be the nearest available magistrate to whom the defendant is brought, if he is not the issuing magistrate. The requirement that upon arrest the defendant be brought before the nearest available magistrate is adapted from the criminal rules of Alaska. This provision differs from the Federal Rules, which allow production before a magistrate outside the district where the warrant was issued only if the arrest is outside the state and over a hundred miles from the place of issuance. Subsection Paragraph (b)(2) provides that a summons will be in the same form as a warrant (in writing signed by the magistrate who issued it, etc.) and that it contain a warning that failure to respond to it will establish grounds for the issuance of a warrant.
Subdivision (c) directs that the warrant shall be directed to all peace officers of this State and further provides for its execution.
This Subdivision is similar to Fed.R.Crim.P. 4(c)(3) The provision that the arresting officer need not have the warrant in his possession at the time of the arrest is rendered necessary by the fact that a fugitive may be discovered and apprehended by any officer. It is impossible for a warrant to be in the possession of every officer who is searching for a fugitive or who unexpectedly might find himself in a position to apprehend a fugitive. This Subdivision sets forth the customary practice in such matters, which is in the sanction of the court. Subsection Paragraph (c)(2) provides for service of summons in substantially the same manner as civil actions under N.D.R.Civ.P. 4 (d)(1). This Rule rule provides essentially the same requirements as Federal Rule Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(c)( 3 1). Provisions for ease of service in the case of a summons reflect the fact that the individual's right to remain at liberty is not infringed.
Subdivision (d) governs the return of the warrant or summons and is essentially the same as Fed.R.Crim.P. 4(c)(4). The return is not conclusive and an error in the return does not void the warrant, where no one was misled thereby, and facts stated in the return will not be accepted where testimony shows them to be untrue.
[See Gilbert v. United States, 291 F.2d 586 (9th Cir. 1961), rehearing denied May 1961.] This Subdivision subdivision provides that in the case of an unexecuted warrant and upon request of the prosecuting attorney, the warrant shall be returned to the magistrate who issued it for cancellation. It further provides that a person to whom the summons was delivered shall appear on or before the return date stated on the face of the summons. Finally, Subdivision subdivision (d) permits reissuance, upon request of the prosecuting attorney, of warrants which have been initially returned unexecuted but which have not been canceled, to be delivered to a peace officer for execution or service.
Subdivision (e) provides a remedy in cases where the warrant or summons is defective. It permits the prosecution to cure a defect which is deemed an informality in the warrant. There shall, however, be dismissal where the warrant is not sufficient on its face.
Rule 4 was amended, effective ________. The language and organization of the rule were changed to make the rule more easily understandable and to make style and terminology consistent throughout the rules.
SOURCES: Joint Procedure Committee Minutes of _________________, pages___; January 27-29, 1972, pages 7-17; November 20-21, 1969, pages 15-16; May 3-4, 1968, pages 3-4; January 26-27, 1968, pages 4-7; Fed.R.Crim.P. 4;
Fed.R.Crim.P., Proposed Amendment, Preliminary Draft, 48 F.R.D. 553 (1970); Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure: Criminal, §§ 51-57 (1969); 8 Moore's Federal Practice, Chapter 4 (Cipes, 2d Ed. 1970); Barron, Federal Practice and Procedure: Criminal, §§ 1851-1855 (1951); A.B.A. Standards for Criminal Justice, Standards Relating to Pretrial Release, §§ 1.3, 3 and Standards Relating to Function of the Trial Judge, § 3.1; American Law Institute Model Code of Pre-Arraignment Procedure, T.D. No. 1, § 603 (1966).
SUPERSEDED: N.D.C.C. §§ 29-05-06, 29-05-07, 29-05-08, 29-05-09, 29-05-28, 29-05-29, 29-05-30, 33-12-06, 40-18-07, 40-18-08.
CONSIDERED: N.D.C.C. §§ 29-05-10, 29-05-23, 29-05-24, 29-05-25, 29-05-26, 29-05-27, 29-05-31, 40-11-11, 40-18-18.
CROSS REFERENCE: N.D.R.Civ.P. 4(c). By Whom Served.