Chapter 2 LAMSIN PDF

Republic of the Philippines
City of Taguig
Gen. Santos Avenue, Central Bicutan, Taguig City
Taguig City University 22
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES
This chapter presents related literature and studies from foreign to local sources
relevant to the current study. The brilliant ideas, insights, observations and findings of
the different authors will be highlighted in this section.
Foreign Literature
There is very little research literature in the criminal justice field on warrants.
Likewise, there has been little systematic study of what they are and how they are
served.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (2014), 81 percent of county police,
83 percent of local police, and 98 percent of sheriffs’ offices serve arrest warrants. In
keeping with their different responsibilities, only 57 percent of state police agencies
serve arrest warrants. Virtually, all state and local agencies that serve warrants also
maintain some type of computerized warrant files. BJS has found that 59 percent of
agencies provide direct computer access for some field officers on wanted suspects
(US Bureau of Justice, 2014).
An arrest warrant is a warrant issued by a judge or magistrate on behalf of the
state, which authorizes the arrest and detention of an individual, or the search and
seizure of an individual's property.

City of Taguig

In Article 120 of the New York Criminal Procedure Law, a warrant of arrest is a
process issued by a local criminal court directing a police officer to arrest a defendant
designated in an accusatory instrument filed with such court and to bring him before
such court in connection with such instrument. The sole function of a warrant of arrest
is to achieve a defendant’s court appearance in a criminal action for the purpose of
arraignment upon the accusatory instrument by which such action was commenced
(New York Times, 2016).
A warrant of arrest must be subscribed by the issuing judge and must state or
contain (a) the name of the issuing court, (b) the date of issuance of the warrant, (c)
the name or title of an offense charged in the underlying accusatory instrument, (d) the
name of the defendant to be arrested or, if such be unknown, any name or description
by which he can be identified with reasonable certainty, (e) the police officer or officers
to whom the warrant is addressed, and (f) a direction that such officer arrest the
defendant and bring him before the issuing court (Sullivan, 2015).
In Canada, arrest warrants are issued by a judge or justice of the peace under
the Criminal Code. Once the warrant has been issued, section 29 of the Code requires
that the arresting officer must give notice to the accused of the existence of the
warrant, the reason for it, and produce it if requested, if it is feasible to do so (Batten,
2010).
In Czech Republic, Czech courts may issue an arrest warrant when it is not
City of Taguig

achievable to summon or bring in for questioning a charged person and at the same
time there is a reason for detention (i.e. concern that the charged person would either
flee, interfere with the proceedings or continue criminal activity. The arrest warrant
includes: identification of the charged person, brief description of the act, for which the
person is charged, designation of section of criminal code, under which the person is
charged, and precise description of reasons for the issuance of the arrest warrant. The
arrest is conducted by the police. Following the arrest, the police must within 24 hours
either hand the arrested person over to the nearest court or release the person. The
court must immediately interview the arrested person, who has the right to have an
attorney present, unless the attorney is not within reach. The court has 24 hours from
the moment of receiving the person from the police to either order remand or to
release him. Reaching the maximum time is always reason for immediate release
(Criminal Procedural Code of the Czech Republic, §69, 2012).
In Germany, Interventions into the freedom of a person are only allowed
through the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany (German: Grundgesetz für
die Bundesrepublik Deutschland) under certain conditions. In article 104 (Deprivation
of liberty) the fundamental law determines that a freedom confinement which exceeds
a maximum of 48 hours can only be ordered by a Haftrichter ("arrest judge"). The
former is called vorläufige Festnahme ("provisional confinement"), the latter is
named Haftbefehl ("order of arrest").
Arrest warrants serve the enforcement of the proper expiry for instance in
City of Taguig

the Code of Criminal Procedure, but also in the civil procedure law and in the
administrative law and the special administrative procedures after the Tax Code, the
Finance Court order or the social court law. In the Article 2 (Personal freedoms), (1)
Every person shall have the right to free development of his personality insofar as he
does not violate the rights of others or offend against the constitutional order or the
moral law; and (2) Every person shall have the right to life and physical integrity.
Freedom of the person shall be inviolable. These rights may be interfered with only
pursuant to a law (Federal Republic of Germany, Basic Law, 2013).
In United Kingdom, the procedure for issuing arrest warrants differs in each of
the three legal jurisdictions (Statutelaw.gov.uk.). In Scotland, a Warrant to
Apprehend may be issued if a defendant has failed to appear in court (Criminal
Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995). In Northern Ireland arrest warrants are usually issued
by a magistrate.
In England and Wales, arrest warrants can be issued for both suspects and
witnesses. Arrest warrants for suspects can be issued by a justice of the peace under
section 1 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 if information (in writing) is laid before
them that a person has committed or is suspected of having committed an offence.
Such arrest warrants can only be issued for someone over 18 if: (a) the offence to
which the warrant relates is an indictable offence or is punishable with imprisonment,
or (b) the person's address is not sufficiently established for a summons to be served
on him.
City of Taguig

Arrest warrants for witnesses can be issued if a justice of the peace is satisfied
on oath that: (a) any person in England or Wales is likely to be able to give material
evidence, or produce any document or thing likely to be material evidence, at the
summary trial of an information by a magistrates' court, (b) it is in the interests of
justice to issue a summons under this subsection to secure the attendance of that
person to give evidence or produce the document or thing, and (c) it is probable that a
summons would not procure the attendance of the person in question or, if: (a) a
person has failed to attend court in response to a summons, (b) the court is satisfied
by evidence on oath that he is likely to be able to give material evidence or produce
any document or thing likely to be material evidence in the proceedings, (c) it is proved
on oath, or in such other manner as may be prescribed, that he has been duly served
with the summons, and that a reasonable sum has been paid or tendered to him for
costs and expenses, and (d) it appears to the court that there is no just excuse for the
failure (Section 97 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980).
In United States, for the police to make a lawful arrest, the arresting officer(s)
must have either (1) probable cause to arrest, or (2) a valid arrest warrant. A valid
arrest warrant is one (a) containing an adequate showing of probable cause, (b)
issued by a neutral and detached magistrate, (c) issued on the basis of a police
affidavit that does not contain known or reckless falsehoods, and (d) particularly
describing the person to be arrested. These minimum requirements stem from the
language contained in the Fourth Amendment. Federal statute and most jurisdictions
City of Taguig

mandate the issuance of an arrest warrant for the arrest of individuals
for misdemeanors that were not committed within the view of a police officer. However,
as long as police have the necessary probable cause, a warrant is usually not needed
to arrest someone suspected of a felony in a public place; these laws vary from state
to state. In a non-emergency situation, an arrest of an individual in their home requires
an arrest warrant.
In the majority of Western legal systems, the major role of the police is to
maintain order, keeping the peace through surveillance of the public, and the
subsequent reporting and apprehension of suspected violators of the law. They also
function to discourage crimes through high-visibility policing, and most police forces
have an investigative capability. Police have the legal authority to arrest and detain,
usually granted by magistrates. Police officers also respond to emergency calls along
with routine community policing (Education-portal.com, 2011).
Typical duties of a police officer relate to keeping the peace, law enforcement,
protection of people and property and the investigation of crimes. Likewise, officers
are expected to respond to a variety of situations that may arise while they are on
duty. Rules and guidelines dictate how an officer should behave within the community,
and in many contexts, restrictions are placed on what the uniformed officer wears. In
some countries, rules and procedure dictate that a police officer is obliged to intervene
in a criminal incident, even if they are off-duty. Police officers in nearly all countries
retain their lawful powers while off duty (Scotland.gov.uk, 2010).

City of Taguig

Bohm and Haley (2015) cited law enforcement as a locally controlled and
structurally decentralized so that each department is responsible for the policies and
procedures that govern how the organization will carry out its statutory duties to serve
the community. The major functions of a police department include the following:
protect life and property; enforce the laws; prevent crime; preserve the peace; arrest
violators; and serve the public. Local, county and state governments, as well as the
federal government, enact laws that give authority to the individual agencies to carry
out these assigned duties.
According to Greenhalgh (2013), search and seizure is a necessary exercise in
the ongoing pursuit of criminals. These are used to produce evidence for the
prosecution of alleged criminals. The police have the power to search and seize, but
individuals are protected against Arbitrary, unreasonable police intrusions. Freedom
from unrestricted search warrants was critical to American colonists.
To guard against arbitrary police intrusions, the newly formed United States in
1791 ratified the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which states that 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.
Search warrants require probable cause, oath or affirmation, and a particular
description of the place and object of the search to meet constitutional requirements. A
City of Taguig

judge may issue a search warrant only after reviewing a sworn statement of facts
showing probable cause to search a particular place for particular items. The standard
for probable cause is objective, meaning that there is sufficient information to
persuade a reasonable person that a certain place contains evidence of a crime.
As cited by Urofsky (2005), the U.S. Supreme Court has said that several of
the amendments create this right. One of these is the Fourth Amendment which stops
the police and other government agents from searching citizens or their property
without facts or apparent facts that are reliable and generate a belief that incriminating
evidence can be found on the citizens or the property. Justice Louis Brandeis called
the right to privacy “the right to be left alone by the government.” Calling this right the
most valuable of all rights, Brandeis considered “every unjustifiable intrusion by the
government upon the privacy of the individual” to be a violation of the Fourth
Amendment.
It was Bloom (2013) who explained that the Law Enforcement Officers are
entrusted with the power to conduct investigations, make arrests, perform searches
and seizures of person and their belongings, and occasionally use lethal force in the
line of duty. But this power must be exercise within the boundaries of the law, and
when police officers exceed those boundaries they jeopardize the admissibility of any
evidence collected for prosecution. By and large, the Fourth Amendment and the case
law interpreting it establish these boundaries.

City of Taguig

The current practices in the enforcement of warrants often meant that the
judicial order was nothing more than a piece of paper. The efficacy of the order was at
stake and the court needed to have something meaningful in place to deal with the
court’s order. The warrant enforcement unit’s purpose is to hold defendants
accountable to orders set forth by the court. The need was to have warrant
enforcement be based on more than just random contact with defendants; this
became a more directed and aggressive way to enforce court orders, taking an active
role versus the passive role in the process that had been occurring (Cortes, 2014).
As cited by Poortvliet (2016), under common law, police make most arrests
without warrants. For a warrantless arrest to be constitutional, the arresting officer
must have probable cause, which means that officers must reasonably believe that a
suspect is about to commit or has committed a crime. Hence, before an arrest is
made, the arresting officer needs to show that probable cause exists. Probable
cause is a legal standard that requires specific circumstances be present before police
can arrest or search a suspect, and it exists when an officer reasonably believes,
under the circumstances, that a crime has been committed and the suspect did it. To
determine if probable cause exists, the court uses the reasonable person standard,
which asks what a reasonable person (or in this case an officer) would believe under
the same set of circumstances. Likewise, this probable cause can be based on either
direct evidence (that is, first‐hand information that is personally known to police
officers) or hearsay.
City of Taguig

On the other hand, when there is no immediate need to arrest a suspect, the
police may seek a court order, commonly called an arrest warrant. To obtain the arrest
warrant, a police officer must submit to a judge an affidavit containing evidence in
support of probable cause. The judge must review the affidavit and decide whether or
not to issue an arrest warrant. In the majority of felony cases, though, a police officer
will act without a warrant and will make that arrest as soon as he or she is convinced
that there are grounds to do so (Poortvliet, 2016).
Apparently, an arrest warrant is a document that a court issues ordering law
enforcement officers to take a specific individual into custody. Under certain
circumstances, the police must have a warrant to make an arrest. In public places, the
police can arrest a felon without a warrant if they have probable cause. In homes,
police must have a warrant to make a routine felony arrest. In some situations,
exigencies (such as the hot pursuit of a dangerous felon) allow the police to engage in
warrantless arrests in homes.
The National Center for State Courts (NCSC) defined "Warrant" as a specific
type of authorization: a writ issued by a competent officer, usually a judge or
magistrate, which permits an otherwise illegal act that would violate individual rights
and affords the person executing the writ protection from damages if the act is
performed. By and large, an arrest warrant is issued by a judge or magistrate and
must be supported by a signed and sworn affidavit showing probable cause that a
specific crime has been committed, and that the person(s) named in the warrant
City of Taguig

committed said crime. An arrest warrant is a warrant issued by a public officer which
authorizes the arrest and detention of an individual. In most jurisdictions, an arrest
warrant is required for misdemeanors that do not occur within view of a police officer.
However, as long as police have the necessary probable cause, a warrant is usually
not needed to arrest someone suspected of a felony (NCSC, 2016).
A criminal arrest warrant is a command from a court ordering law enforcement
official to arrest the individual named in the warrant. Under the 4th Amendment to the
Constitution, an arrest warrant can be issued only after there has been a sworn
complaint filed, based upon a judicial finding that there is probable cause to believe
that a crime has been committed and the named individual committed that crime.
These “probable cause” warrants are but one category of criminal arrest warrant.
There are many different types of warrants. Common types of warrants in
criminal cases include arrest warrants and search warrants. An arrest warrant is
usually designed to detain a person who is suspected of committing a specific crime.
As a rule, an arrest warrant is granted when probable cause supports that a crime has
been committed by the person listed in the warrant. On the other hand, a search
warrant is a warrant to search a specific premise for evidence of a specific crime. The
warrant is issued by the judge if he or she finds probable cause to believe such
evidence exists based on information presented by police to the judge in the form of a
signed and sworn affidavit. Search warrants are generally not relevant to most of what
technologists do in the field of criminal justice.

City of Taguig

In addition to warrants for arrest for committing some specified crime, other
warrants can be issued for failure to appear in court (FTA) and failure to follow a
court’s orders. These warrants may be called by different names in different
jurisdictions. Some of these types of warrants are: (1) Alias Warrant which is issued
when the subject fails to appear in court for a scheduled court date before any plea
has been entered or fails to respond to a citation in person or by mail. Failure to
appear is an added charge; (2) Bench Warrant which is a variant of the arrest warrant.
It is usually issued when a subject fails to appear for a required court appearance; (3)
Capias Warrant/Capias Pro Fine Warrant which is issued when a subject has a guilty
judgment either through court appearance, plea, or arraignment in jail, then fails to pay
a fine or complete some specified conditions within the required time period. The only
way to resolve a Capias Warrant is to pay the fine in full or be released "time served"
by remaining in jail until enough jail credit has been earned; (4) Civil Capias
Warrant which is a special type of apprehension order, issued in civil court cases
where the defendant repeatedly fails to comply with the judge's orders. These are also
called Body Attachments and Mittimuses, and are slightly different from Criminal
Warrants. A civil capias warrant is not the same as a criminal arrest warrant. The
purpose of the civil capias warrant, in a contempt case, however, is to get a person
into court for the hearing; (5) Fugitive Warrant is a warrant sent from another state
when the suspect is believed to be in local jurisdiction; and (6) Governor's
Warrant which warrants come from the Governor's office so the suspect, who has
City of Taguig

committed a crime in another state, may be arrested and transported back to that state
(NCSC, 2016).
Also, a no‐knock warrant authorizes police to break down doors without
warnings and to enter homes or public places. The Supreme Court has ruled that no‐
knock warrants can be used when police fear that announcing their presence could
endanger their lives or give criminals time to destroy the evidence the police are
seeking. Civil liberties advocates think no‐knock warrants often violate the spirit of the
Fourth Amendment because they are often based on unreliable sources of
information. No‐knock warrants are sometimes based solely on the word
of confidential informers, who are often criminals, seeking to trade what they know for
reduced charges, shorter sentences, or cash. Police officials defend no‐knock
warrants, saying the warrants have enabled the police to mount an aggressive assault
against drugs. Moreover, the police assert that a majority of their no‐knock search
warrants yield contraband.
Conversely, electronic eavesdropping is also considered a search. It consists of
both telephone wiretapping and bugging. (Bugs are electronic listening devices that
record sounds.) Law enforcement agents sought a record number of court orders in
1997 to allow them to secretly listen in on more than two million private conversations.
The telephone wiretap was the most common device used. Narcotics investigations
spurred almost 75 percent of the wiretap requests in 1997. However, Title III of the
federal Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act (1968) places wiretapping and
City of Taguig

bugging under tight controls. Under this law, police must get a search warrant before
secretly intercepting conversations. Title III contains a statutory exclusionary rule. It
prohibits trial courts, grand juries, regulatory agencies, and other government bodies
from using evidence obtained by unauthorized interception.
An exception to the warrant requirement in Title III applies to officers who are
parties to conversations: they do not need a warrant to wear a wire or tape a phone
call. The Supreme Court has determined that exigent circumstances (in other words,
emergencies and other situations requiring exceptional police actions) justify
exceptions to the warrant rule. In reality, most police searches are conducted without
warrants.
The majority of warrantless searches fall into one of the following categories.
First is the Consent search which is a warrantless search made when the person in
control of an area or object gives his or her consent. By consenting, a citizen forfeits all
Fourth Amendment rights. Most criminal charges are handled through consent
searches. A citizen must voluntarily consent, rather than being coerced or tricked into
consenting. A citizen always has the right to say “no.” Police are not legally obligated
to inform citizens whose consent they are seeking that citizens have a right to refuse
to give consent. Second, the Hot‐pursuit search. This is a warrantless search following
an officer's chase of a dangerous suspect into the suspect's home, the residence of a
third party, a public building, or some other place.
Third is the Automobile search which is a warrantless search of a car when

City of Taguig

police have probable cause to believe the car contains evidence of a crime. The Court
permits officers to search cars more freely than houses. Due to the mobility of cars,
officers may give up opportunities to seize evidence if they take the time to get a
warrant. The police can't, however, simply begin searching a car because they are
suspicious of the driver's appearance. To satisfy the probable cause prerequisite, the
police must have prior knowledge that the vehicle was involved in a crime or contains
contraband. In a rare win for privacy rights, the Court ruled in Knowles v. Iowa (1998)
that police can't search people and their cars after merely ticketing them for routine
traffic violations. Such a search—without suspicion of other wrongdoing—is
unreasonable and unconstitutional. The Court's decision in Knowles ran counter to its
trend since the 1970s of narrowing the privacy rights afforded by the Fourth
Amendment.
The fourth warrantless searches is the Search incident to arrest. Once there is
probable cause to make an arrest, the Court said in U.S. v. Robinson (1973), a police
officer can search the person arrested and the area under the arrestee's control. It
makes sense, the Court said, to authorize such a search to preserve evidence and to
protect the arresting officer's safety. The last is the Plain‐view search which takes
place when a police officer sees evidence in plain view, is legal so long as the officer
has a right to be present in the place where he or she discovers the evidence. If an
officer has a warrant to search a house for guns, for example, and finds illegal drugs
during the search, the officer can also seize the drugs.
City of Taguig

Under the protective sweep doctrine, the conservative Court expanded the
scope of plain view. A protective sweep is a quick, limited, warrantless search of the
entire premises. If police have reasonable suspicion that others are on the premises
when they arrest a suspect, the officers can examine the entire premises. If the police
have no suspicion that there are others in a place where they make an arrest, they can
still look into adjoining closets or rooms. In both situations, the police may seize
contraband or evidence in plain view.
The Law enforcement in the United States is one of three major components of
the criminal justice system along with courts and corrections. Although each
component operates semi-independently, the three collectively form a chain leading
from investigation of suspected criminal activity to administration of criminal
punishment. This law enforcement operates primarily through governmental police
agencies which purposes are the investigation of suspected criminal activity, referral of
the results of investigations to the courts, and the temporary detention of suspected
criminals pending judicial action. To varying degrees at different levels of government
and in different agencies, they are also commonly charged with the responsibilities of
deterring criminal activity and preventing the successful commission of crimes in
progress. Other duties may include the service and enforcement of warrants, writs,
and other orders of the courts (Sullivan, 2005).
In line with, the Law enforcement officers are granted certain powers to enable
them to carry out their duties. When there exists probable cause to believe that a
City of Taguig

person has committed a serious crime, a law enforcement officer
can handcuff and arrest a person, who will be held in a police station or jail pending a
judicial bail determination or an arraignment (Archbold, 2013).
In 2008, federal police employed approximately 120,000 full-time law
enforcement officers, authorized to make arrests and carry firearms in the United
States (Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies, 2008). In 2010, the
FBI estimated that law enforcement agencies made 13,120,947 arrests (excluding
traffic violations). Of those persons arrested, 74.5% were male and 69.4 percent of all
persons arrested were white, 28.0 percent were black, and the remaining 2.6 percent
were of other races (National Crime Information System, 2010).
The Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement officers may enter a house
without knocking if they have “a reasonable suspicion” that announcing their presence
would be dangerous or allow a suspect to destroy evidence (for example, by flushing
drugs down the toilet). In addition, rules on civil asset forfeiture allow law enforcement
officers to seize anything which they can plausibly claim was the proceeds of a crime.
The property-owner need not be convicted of that crime; if officers find drugs in a
house, they can take cash from the house and possibly the house itself.
Commentators have said these rules provide an incentive for law enforcement officers
to focus on drug-related crimes rather than rape and murder investigations. They also
provide an incentive to arrest suspected drug-dealers inside their houses, which can
be seized, and to raid stash houses after most of their drugs have been sold, when
City of Taguig

officers can seize the cash (ACLU, 2014).
Title 18 of the United States Code section 3105 says that Federal Agents can
execute warrants. State and Local officers can help the feds, even if the state and
local are working outside their jurisdiction to do that, as long as the Federal Agent
remains in charge of the execution of the search. Private Citizens can also help the
Federal agent as long as the private citizens are serving a legitimate investigative
function. Now importantly what the 4th Amendment does not allow in terms of bringing
someone else along for the search is for the agents to bring private party to the site of
the search just so they can tag along for some private purpose or to satisfy their own
curiosity (FLETC, 2015).
Conducting a reasonable search includes making a reasonably entry and Title
18 of the US code section 3109 is what we refer to as the federal “Knock and
Announce” statue. So the general rule for knock and announce is that before agents
force enter into a resident to execute a warrant - either an arrest warrant or a search
warrant - they have to “knock and announce” their identity, authority and purpose and
demand entry from the people inside (FLETC, 2015).
However, there is an important exception according to Title 21 to US Code
section 879. Search warrants involving controlled substance can be served at any
time. In addition to controlled substance warrants, agents can get special night time
permission to execute other kinds of warrants. They must show the court reasonable
cause for being allowed to do so. Also, in some investigations like, illegal gambling,
City of Taguig

human trafficking, or prostitution, night time might be the only time the officers are
likely to find the evidence they are looking for at that location.
Conversely, judges can issue no knock warrants from the “get go” when agents
can articulate reasonable suspicious that to knock and announce will be dangerous,
futile or inhibit that investigation. Hence, agents might decide they might either go to
the judge with this information or they may find this information at the scene and make
the decision themselves (FLETC, 2015).
Foreign Studies
According to the most popular perception of the majority of the people or
citizens in the country, the role of the police officer is to solve crimes, arrest criminals
and put them behind bars.
In the comparative analysis of post-adjudicated arrest warrant issuance and
enforcement in the seven municipal courts in Arizona conducted by Cortes (2015),
there was an overcrowding in the Coconino County Jail and an exceedingly high
number of outstanding arrest warrants that were issued out of the Flagstaff Municipal
Court, but not cleared. Due to the fiscal realities that the Flagstaff Municipal Court
faces, the resources allocated to the warrant enforcement program. The intent of the
study was to specifically address two questions: (1) how does the Flagstaff Municipal
Court compare to other municipal courts that do not have a warrant unit in terms of
City of Taguig

effective warrant enforcement? And, (2) assuming that there are differences, what
factors contribute to those differences?
The findings indicate significant variances of the comparison courts. This is
largely due to the autonomy of the local courts. Likewise, there is judicial discretion in
implementing policies and procedures on the issuance and enforcement of warrants of
the comparison courts. This judicial discretion affords the opportunity to manage the
court caseload in the way that the presiding judge sees fit for the overall operation of
the court and for the individual judge to have discretion in relation to the individual
case.
There has been much discussion in the court community over the past several
decades regarding the purpose and responsibilities of the courts. There is no longer a
general societal assumption that courts simply must exist for their own sake. It can be
argued that what counts for the judicial branch is ensuring that laws are administered
in a just manner, deterring violations of the law and the effectiveness of the court
order. When examining these issues, it was found that doing individual justice in
individual cases, appearing to do justice in individual cases, deterring criminal
behavior and separating persons convicted of serious offenses from society, do not
take place without the follow-through of the court on the sentences they impose.
In the study conducted by Guyness and Wolff (2014) which was an
exploratory one that focused on unserved arrest warrants in US. It also aimed to
determine whether better service of warrants could prevent the incidence of violent
City of Taguig

crime. The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) retained Science Applications
International Corporation (SAIC) and the Institute for Law and Justice (ILJ) to examine
the extent to which increasing the effort to serve warrants may be an effective public
safety strategy against violent crime.
It was found out that the experimentation of police departments on their own
shows a clear willingness to look for solutions. The way in which warrants are served
is something that is subject to experimental analysis. There are no necessary legal
restrictions against the experimentation for finding optimal solutions. The expense of
such a project should be reasonable. Besides, the benchmarking and research costs,
as well as the added costs that may be necessary to cover departmental expenses
are: (1) Training officers for new strategies, (2) Hiring civilian phone workers for the
test period, and (3) Modifications of record keeping for tracking the experiment.
It has become clear that all branches of government are under scrutiny by the
public, particularly in the area of their expenditures. The judicial branch is not immune
to examination, in fact the publication Funding Justice: Strategies and Messages for
Restoring Court Funding, First Edition 2012, offers information on how the public views
the government and more specifically the judicial system. It states “public distrust in
government taints courts, too.” All branches of government seem to get grouped
together to some extent. The information in the study provided, states that 13% of the
answers had a “great deal of confidence” in the state court system, slightly more (18%)
in the United States Supreme Court. These percentages are unfortunately very low.
City of Taguig

Additionally, the question was posed on whether or not the respondent felt that their
state - “does not spend enough on it” (their respective State Court) and only 17%
responded; which means that the remaining 83% felt that their state spends too much
or about the right amount on state courts.
The Current Practices In Collecting Fines and Fees In State Courts: A
Handbook of Collection Issues and Solutions, published by the National Center for
State Courts, Court Services Division notes that nationwide, warrants are served on
defendants as a result of some other offense having taken place. It further notes that
“most localities do not have sufficient staff to actively serve warrants”. This nationwide
problem seems to give the impression that the courts’ warrants are not important. If
the executive branch, through their law enforcement entities, happens to come across
an individual with a warrant, then the warrant will be served, but there is not a pointed
focus on enforcing the court’s order. It appears that either the executive branch may
not be the appropriate branch to enforce judicial orders or that the judicial branch may
need to implement new requirements to increase accountability (Matthias and
Klaversma, 2009).
Apparently, the inconsistencies on warrant issuance, enforcement and
management are not just a problem in Arizona. The Warrant and Disposition
Management 2011 State Survey conducted by the National Center for State Courts
and SEARCH, provided information on warrant management. The survey was
predominately focused on the entry of warrants into the warrant repository and on the
City of Taguig

accuracy of the information. The most pertinent information for the purpose of this
project was their conclusion that, “States vary significantly with respect to how they
manage warrants, including where warrants are stored (centrally or locally) and how
they are transmitted (electronically or manually)” (National Center for State Courts and
SEARCH, 2011). This concept is intriguing and is one that is addressed in this project,
specifically, in regards to the practices of municipal courts. Courts may only have the
warrant entered into a local police database and therefore if the defendant has law
enforcement contact outside of that specific city, the other law enforcement entity
would be unaware of the warrant.
Accordingly, this is not just a court issue, but also a safety concern for law
enforcement officers. The practice of only entering the warrant into the local system
will also limit the likelihood of the warrant being served on the defendant. The warrant
officers are available to regularly transport defendants who are arrested in other
jurisdictions on our court’s warrants due to the utilization of a centralized warrant
repository. Entering warrants into the central repository creates consistency among
courts, as does having guidelines on when courts should be issuing a warrant on a
case.
The Arizona Administrative Office of the Courts, Court Services Division, (2012)
Best Business Practices, provides information on timelines associated with court
ordered enforcement and criminal warrants. The timeline associated with the issuance
of warrants in instances of noncompliance is 30 days. The Best Business Practices

City of Taguig

provides the framework to provide a consistent expectation not only for courts but also
for defendants. It seems to be sending a clear message that the violations of court
orders should be handled aggressively and in a swift manner. The question becomes
an obvious one, why are there inconsistencies of warrant issuance? The research
conducted on this project may shed some light on this issue.
Moreover, through the research conducted on warrant enforcement in Arizona,
there was one statewide initiative. The Arizona Department of Public Safety (AZDPS)
and the United States Marshals Service combined efforts for the creation of the
Arizona WANTED (Wanted Apprehension Network Targeted Enforcement Detail) Task
Force. The information for the WANTED Task Force was located in The Annual Report
of the Arizona Department of Public Safety. The task force’s main function is to
investigate and arrest persons who have active state and federal warrants for their
arrest.
Primarily the types of warrants that are focused on are “violent crimes against
persons, weapons offenses, felony drug arrests, failure to register as a sex offender
and crimes committed by subjects who have criminal history involving violent crimes,
felony drug offenses, and /or weapons offenses” (Arizona Department of Public
Safety, 2012). To be specific, this task force would not be responsive to FTC or FTP
warrants issued out of any municipal court. The combined efforts produced 353
fugitive arrests in fiscal year 2011 and 346 fugitives in fiscal year 2012.
City of Taguig

Local Literature
Almost eight years after its initial publication in September 2002, the Police
Operational Procedures (POP) Manual was revised and updated in consideration of
developments in law enforcement and peacekeeping which is one of the projects
under the PNP’s Integrated Transformation Program spearheaded by the Chief, PNP.
Among the most significant updates in operational processes and procedures is the
inclusion of human rights protection which should be provided to both victims and
criminals being investigated or under police custody.
This PNP Operational Procedure Manual (2010) holds the key to successful
police actions and if faithfully followed, it would shield law enforcers from criminal and
administrative liabilities as they fulfill their mandate to serve and protect the
community. Regardless of the type of function to be performed and/or police
operations to be conducted, all PNP personnel must know by heart and shall comply
and apply the procedures in the manual.
Extensively, criminal investigation is a systematic process of identifying,
preserving evidence and evaluating information for the purpose of bringing criminal, to
the bar of justice and giving the victim/s justice as well.
In this process, the three important tools of investigation are applied, explicitly
the 3 I’s: information, interview/interrogation and instrumentation. The information is
usually given by informants, witnesses and sometimes available at the police records
on file (i.e., rogue gallery, police modus operandi file, target list and wanted list and
City of Taguig

order of battle maintained by police station or police intelligence units). All information
must be supported by testimonies from the victim and witnesses; a sworn testimony.
Sometimes, an interrogation is conducted by the investigators just to obtain additional
information to aid for the solution of crimes, however doing this in a careless manner
can be a factor for the dismissal of cases, such as when the investigators failed to
observe the constitutional right of the suspects as plainly defined under Miranda
Doctrine. It is also provided for under R.A. Nr. 7438, that define certain rights of person
arrested, detained or under custodial investigation as well as the duties of the
arresting, detaining and investigating officers, and providing penalties for violations
thereof (Republic Act No. 7438 “The Right of the Person under Custody”).
The DOJ Department Circular 050 (2010), required that the arresting officer or
investigator should observed the prescribed Reglementary Period (the detention
periods allowed by law from time the suspect was taken into custody) defined by law
under the new Circular of the Department of Justice. That the counting of hours will all
throughout the day starting from the time of arrest and this will exclude Sunday and
Official Holiday.
The arresting officer, or the investigator, as the case may be, must under
established regulations, allow the person arrested, detained, or under custodial
investigation visits by or conferences with any member of his immediate family, any
medical doctor, priest, Imam or religious minister chosen by him or by any member of
his immediate family or by his counsel, or by any local Non-Government Organization

City of Taguig

(NGO) duly accredited by the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) or by any
international NGO duly accredited by the Office of the President. His “immediate
family” shall include his spouse, parent or child, brother or sister, grandparent or
grandchild, uncle or aunt, nephew or niece, and guardian or ward. After interrogation,
person under custodial investigation shall undergo physical examination by an
independent and competent doctor of his own choice. The physical examination of the
person under custodial investigation shall be contained in a medical report, which shall
be attached to the custodial investigation report.
According to Laserna Jr. (2014), a public prosecutor’s determination of probable
cause – that is, one made for the purpose of filing information in court – is essentially
an executive function and, therefore, generally lies beyond the pale of judicial scrutiny.
The exception to this rule is when such determination is tainted with grave abuse of
discretion and perforce becomes correctible through the extraordinary writ of certiorari.
It is fundamental that the concept of grave abuse of discretion transcends mere
judgmental error as it properly pertains to a jurisdictional aberration. While defying
precise definition, grave abuse of discretion generally refers to a “capricious or
whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.”
Corollary, the abuse of discretion must be patent and gross so as to amount to
an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or
to act at all in contemplation of law. To note, the underlying principle behind the courts’
power to review a public prosecutor’s determination of probable cause is to ensure

City of Taguig

that the latter acts within the permissible bounds of his authority or does not gravely
abuse the same. This manner of judicial review is a constitutionally-enshrined form of
check and balance which underpins the very core of our system of government.
When a respondent is arrested under Rule 13 (valid warrantless arrest), he is
immediately subjected to an inquest proceeding (that is, within 36 hours at the most,
counted from the arrest of the respondent, if he does not waive his right against illegal
detention under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code). If the inquest prosecutor is
satisfied with the proofs of probable cause submitted by the complainant and the
arresting police officers, he will file the appropriate information in court, subject to
review and approval by the chief city or provincial prosecutor, within the maximum
period allowed by Article 125.
Under Rule 13, section 1 of the Philippine National Police Handbook (2013), the
General Guidelines on arrest emphasizes that, all arrests should be made only on the
basis of a valid Warrant of Arrest issued by a competent authority, except in instances
where the law allows warrantless arrest. Also, no violence or unnecessary force shall
be used in making an arrest, and the person to be arrested shall not be subjected to
any greater restraint than what is necessary under the circumstances. As a general
rule, arrests can be made on any day of the week and at any time of the day or night.
However, only judges are authorized to issue Warrants of Arrest which is no longer
needed if the accused is already under detention. Likewise, an Order of Commitment
is issued by the judge in lieu of the Warrant of Arrest.
44
City of Taguig

The Revised Philippine National Police Operational Procedures (2013) defined
warrant of arrest as the written authority of the arresting officer when making an arrest
or taking of a person into custody in order that he may be bound to answer for the
commission of an offense. The head of the office to whom the warrant of arrest has
been delivered for implementation shall cause the warrant to be implemented within
ten (10) days from receipt. Within ten (10) days after the expiration of such period, the
police officer to whom it was assigned for implementation shall make a report to the
judge who issued the warrant and in case of his failure to implement the same, shall
state the reasons thereof.
In section 6, Rule 13 of the PNP Handbook (2013), it shall be the duty of the
police officer implementing the Warrant of Arrest to deliver the arrested person without
delay to the nearest Police Station or jail to record the fact of the arrest. At the time of
the arrest, it shall be the duty of the arresting officer to inform the person arrested of
the cause of the arrest and the fact that a warrant had been issued for his arrest. The
arresting officer need not have the warrant in his possession at the time of the arrest
but after the arrest, if the person arrested so requires, the warrant shall be shown to
him as soon as possible. When women or children are among the arrested suspect/s,
the arresting officer shall task the Women’s and Children’s Protection Desks (WCPD)
officer or a policewoman who is familiar with women and children protection desk
duties to conduct the pat-down search.
45
City of Taguig

In case of arrest without a warrant, it shall be the duty of the arresting officer to
inform the person to be arrested of his authority and the cause of the arrest except
when he flees or forcibly resists before the arresting officer has the opportunity to
inform him or when the giving of such information will imperil the arrest. The person
arrested, with or without warrant, shall be informed of his constitutional right to remain
silent and that any statement he makes could be used against him. Also, that he has
the right to communicate with his lawyer or his immediate family and the right to
physical examination.
A person arrested without a warrant shall be immediately brought to the proper
Police Station for investigation without unnecessary delay. He shall be subjected to
inquest proceedings within the time prescribed in Article 125 of the Revised Penal
Code (RPC). No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which
vitiate the free shall be used against an arrested person. The bringing of arrested
persons to secret detention places, solitary confinement and the like is prohibited.
However, if the person arrested without a warrant waives his right under the provisions
of Art 125 of the Revised Penal Code, the arresting officer shall ensure that the former
signs a waiver of detention in the presence of his counsel of choice. And if the person
arrested waives his right against self-incrimination and chooses to give his statement,
the arresting officer shall ensure that the waiver is made in writing and signed by the
person arrested in the presence of a counsel of his own choice or a competent and
City of Taguig

independent counsel provided by the government (PNP Operational Procedure
Manual 2013).
On the other hand, SEC. 24 of the REPUBLIC ACT 6975 known as the
“Department of the Interior and Local Government Act of 1990” accentuates the
powers and functions of the Philippine National Police which include: (a) Enforcing all
laws and ordinances relative to the protection of lives and properties; (b) Maintaining
peace and order and take all necessary steps to ensure public safety; (c) Investigating
and preventing crimes, effect the arrest of criminal offenders, bring offenders to justice
and assist in their prosecution; (d) Exercise the general powers to make arrest, search
and seizure in accordance with the Constitution and pertinent laws; (e) Detain an
arrested person for a period not beyond what is prescribed by law, informing the
person so detained of all his rights under the Constitution ; (f) Issue licenses for the
possession of firearms and explosives in accordance with law; (g) Supervise and
control the training and operations of security agencies and issue licenses to operate
security agencies, and to security guards and private detectives, for the practice of
their professions; and (h) Perform such other duties and exercise all other functions as
may be provided by law (Revised Philippine National Police Operational Procedures,
2013).
Local Studies
City of Taguig

The warrant of arrest is the written authority of the arresting officer when
making an arrest or taking of a person into custody in order that he may be bound to
answer for the commission of an offense.
The head of the office to whom the warrant of arrest has been delivered for
implementation shall cause the warrant to be implemented within ten (10) days from
receipt. Within ten (10) days after the expiration of such period, the police officer to
whom it was assigned for implementation shall make a report to the judge who issued
the warrant and in case of his failure to implement the same, shall state the reasons
thereof.
A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: a. When,
in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense; b. When an offense has just been committed and he
has probable cause to believe, based on personal knowledge of facts or
circumstances, that the person to be arrested has committed it; c. When the person to
be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where
he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has
escaped while being transferred from one confinement area to another; d. Where the
accused released on bail attempts to leave the country without court permission; e.
Violation of conditional pardon, punishable under Article 159 of the Revised Penal
Code as a case of evasion of service of sentence; and f. Arrest following a Deportation

City of Taguig

Proceeding by the Immigration Commissioner against illegal and undesirable aliens.
(Source: PNP Operational Procedure Manual 2013
Synthesis of the Reviewed Literature and Studies
The review of related literature has contributed much information and
insights to the researcher in undertaking the enforcement level in serving warrant of
arrest with strict adherence to its standard operating procedures.
News articles on huge backlogs of warrants, along with several well-
publicized cases involving heinous crimes committed by offenders with outstanding
warrants, have given rise to the question of whether better service of warrants could
prevent the incidence of violent crime.
Interestingly, there is very little research on how courts enforce orders and
specifically which enforcement techniques lead to greater compliance. The issuance
and the enforcement of warrants is a largely overlooked piece of the process.
Warrants need to begin to be accounted for. The inability to measure clearance rates
of warrants means that this important metric is unknown.
While practitioners and researchers who deal with warrants, criminal
bookings, and criminal court services are generally aware of the nature of outstanding
warrants, there has been little systematic study of what they are and how they are
served. Consequently, while the common belief is that the bulk of outstanding
warrants are for lesser crimes and failures to appear in court on lesser crimes, there
really has been no attempt to put numbers to this belief.

City of Taguig

Consistency both within the court community and with our justice partners, to
ensure equitable treatment to all, can be accomplished by finding creative approaches
to enforcement that show both fiscal responsibility and court potency. Courts need to
address the issue of warrants and their efficacy if we want to maintain credibility and
relevance in the eyes of our funding authorities and the communities that we serve.
Relinquishing the enforcement responsibility without requiring accountability of the
executive branch only weakens the perception of the court in our communities.
Fulfilling the responsibility in the enforcement of court orders can help solidify the role
of the court in our society.
And lastly, it is imperative that the judicial branch takes responsibility for making
sure that what is ordered is carried out or there is a possible risk that courts will be
seen as ineffective and possibly unnecessary by the public that they serve and by
society as a whole.

Chapter 2 LAMSIN PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 2 LAMSIN PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

Taguig City University 22

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

the different authors will be highlighted in this section.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (2014), 81 percent of county police,

(US Bureau of Justice, 2014).

An arrest warrant is a warrant issued by a judge or magistrate on behalf of the

seizure of an individual's property.

Taguig City University 23

is to achieve a defendant’s court appearance in a criminal action for the purpose of

(New York Times, 2016).

Taguig City University 24

(Criminal Procedural Code of the Czech Republic, §69, 2012).

In Germany, Interventions into the freedom of a person are only allowed

die Bundesrepublik Deutschland) under certain conditions. In article 104 (Deprivation

a maximum of 48 hours can only be ordered by a Haftrichter ("arrest judge"). The

former is called vorläufige Festnahme ("provisional confinement"), the latter is

named Haftbefehl ("order of arrest").

Taguig City University 25

pursuant to a law (Federal Republic of Germany, Basic Law, 2013).

the three legal jurisdictions (Statutelaw.gov.uk.). In Scotland, a Warrant to

Apprehend may be issued if a defendant has failed to appear in court (Criminal

them that a person has committed or is suspected of having committed an offence.

which the warrant relates is an indictable offence or is punishable with imprisonment,

Taguig City University 26

evidence, or produce any document or thing likely to be material evidence, at the

summary trial of an information by a magistrates' court, (b) it is in the interests of

by evidence on oath that he is likely to be able to give material evidence or produce

failure (Section 97 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980).

Taguig City University 27

to state. In a non-emergency situation, an arrest of an individual in their home requires

with routine community policing (Education-portal.com, 2011).

retain their lawful powers while off duty (Scotland.gov.uk, 2010).

Taguig City University 28

out these assigned duties.

According to Greenhalgh (2013), search and seizure is a necessary exercise in

individuals are protected against Arbitrary, unreasonable police intrusions. Freedom

from unrestricted search warrants was critical to American colonists.

describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Search warrants require probable cause, oath or affirmation, and a particular

Taguig City University 29

for probable cause is objective, meaning that there is sufficient information to

persuade a reasonable person that a certain place contains evidence of a crime.

government upon the privacy of the individual” to be a violation of the Fourth

law interpreting it establish these boundaries.

Taguig City University 30

court’s order. The warrant enforcement unit’s purpose is to hold defendants

without warrants. For a warrantless arrest to be constitutional, the arresting officer

suspect is about to commit or has committed a crime. Hence, before an arrest is

Taguig City University 31

warrant, a police officer must submit to a judge an affidavit containing evidence in

that there are grounds to do so (Poortvliet, 2016).

Apparently, an arrest warrant is a document that a court issues ordering law

enforcement officers to take a specific individual into custody. Under certain

warrantless arrests in homes.

type of authorization: a writ issued by a competent officer, usually a judge or

performed. By and large, an arrest warrant is issued by a judge or magistrate and

Taguig City University 32

authorizes the arrest and detention of an individual. In most jurisdictions, an arrest

not needed to arrest someone suspected of a felony (NCSC, 2016).

A criminal arrest warrant is a command from a court ordering law enforcement

There are many different types of warrants. Common types of warrants in