 | The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United Kingdom, the Philippines, and the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject.(March 2023) |
An arrest without warrant or a warrantless arrest is an arrest of an individual without the use of an arrest warrant.
Section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, [1] as of 1 January 2006, provides that a constable may arrest, without a warrant, anyone who is about to commit or is currently committing an offence (or anyone the constable has reasonable grounds to believe to be about to commit or currently committing an offence). The constable is also entitled to arrest anyone guilty of an offence or anyone who he reasonably believes to be guilty of an offence. However, the constable must have reasonable grounds that any of the following reasons make it necessary to arrest the person in question: to enable the real name or address of the person in question to be ascertained, to allow the prompt and effective investigation of the offence or conduct of the person in question, or to prevent the person in question:
Section 24A has similar provisions for citizens' arrests but the reasons permitted for arrest by anyone other than a constable are limited to preventing the person in question from causing injury to the arrestor, themselves or to others; preventing property damage; or preventing the person in question from making off before a constable can assume responsibility for him.
The definition of an arrest, however, is contained in the judgement of Lord Diplock in Holgate-Mohammed v Duke, where he stated that an arrest is "a continuing act; it starts with the arrester taking a person into his custody, (sc. by action or words restraining him from moving anywhere beyond the arrester's control), and it continues until the person so restrained is either released from custody or, having been brought before a magistrate, is remanded in custody by the magistrate's judicial act." [2]
Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita of 2023 empowers police to arrest an individual without warrant or orders from a magistrate under certain circumstances including: [3]
Section 35 specifically bars arrests of persons who are infirm or over the age of 65 without a warrant.
 | This section needs additional citations for verification .(August 2020) |
In the Philippines, as provided in Rule 113, Section 5 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, [4] a peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
Also as provided within the Revised Rules are other instances of lawful arrests without warrant:
In the United States, an arrest without a warrant still requires probable cause – in the case of an arrest without a warrant, probable cause must be promptly filed. [5]
An arrest without warrant is generally allowed when:
A search warrant is a court order that a magistrate or judge issues to authorize law enforcement officers to conduct a search of a person, location, or vehicle for evidence of a crime and to confiscate any evidence they find. In most countries, a search warrant cannot be issued in aid of civil process.
An arrest warrant or bench 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.
In United States criminal law, probable cause is the legal standard by which police authorities have reason to obtain a warrant for the arrest of a suspected criminal and for a court's issuing of a search warrant. One definition of the standard derives from the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case of Beck v. Ohio (1964), that probable cause exists when “at [the moment of arrest] the facts and circumstances within [the] knowledge [of the police], and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information, [are] sufficient to warrant a prudent [person] in believing that [a suspect] had committed or was committing an offense.”
An arrest is the act of apprehending and taking a person into custody, usually because the person has been suspected of or observed committing a crime. After being taken into custody, the person can be questioned further and/or charged. An arrest is a procedure in a criminal justice system, sometimes it is also done after a court warrant for the arrest.
A citizen's arrest is an arrest made by a private citizen – a person who is not aging as a sworn law-enforcement official. In common law jurisdictions, the practice dates back to medieval England and the English common law, in which sheriffs encouraged ordinary citizens to help apprehend law breakers.
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in which the court ruled that it is constitutional for American police to "stop and frisk" a person they reasonably suspect to be armed and involved in a crime. Specifically, the decision held that a police officer does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures when questioning someone even though the officer lacks probable cause to arrest the person, so long as the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. The court also ruled that the police officer may perform a quick surface search of the person's outer clothing for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is "armed and presently dangerous." This reasonable suspicion must be based on "specific and articulable facts," and not merely upon an officer's hunch.
Breach of the peace or disturbing the peace is a legal term used in constitutional law in English-speaking countries and in a public order sense in the United Kingdom. It is a form of disorderly conduct.
False arrest, unlawful arrest or wrongful arrest is a common law tort, where a plaintiff alleges they were held in custody without probable cause, or without an order issued by a court of competent jurisdiction. Although it is possible to sue law enforcement officials for false arrest, the usual defendants in such cases are private security firms.
Arrestable offence is a legal term now obsolete in English law and the legal system of Northern Ireland, but still used in the legal system of the Republic of Ireland. The Criminal Law Act 1967 introduced the category to replace the ancient term felony. That Act had been superseded by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which over the next two decades was itself significantly amended to increase police powers of arrest, relating in particular to entry, search following arrest and to custody. In England and Wales, the category "arrestable offence" ceased to exist with the advent on 1 January 2006 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act. In Northern Ireland, it ceased to exist with the advent of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Amendment) Order 2007. In the Republic of Ireland, the Criminal Law Act 1997 abolished the terms felony and misdemeanour and created the term "arrestable offence" in their place.
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) is an Act of Parliament which instituted a legislative framework for the powers of police officers in England and Wales to combat crime, and provided codes of practice for the exercise of those powers. Part VI of PACE required the Home Secretary to issue Codes of Practice governing police powers. The aim of PACE is to establish a balance between the powers of the police in England and Wales and the rights and freedoms of the public. Equivalent provision is made for Northern Ireland by the Police and Criminal Evidence Order 1989 (SI 1989/1341). The equivalent in Scots Law is the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.
Intentional harassment, alarm or distress is a statutory offence in England and Wales. It is an aggravated form of the offence of harassment, alarm or distress under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986.
A water bailiff is a law-enforcement officer responsible for the policing of bodies of water, such as rivers, lakes or the coast. The position has existed in many jurisdictions throughout history.
An immigration officer is a law enforcement official whose job is to ensure that immigration legislation is enforced. This can cover the rules of entry for visa applicants, foreign nationals or those seeking asylum at the border, detecting and apprehending those that have breached the border and removing them, or pursuing those in breach of immigration and criminal laws.
A criminal justice police custody and security officer (CJPCSO), formerly known as a turnkey, is a uniformed non-warranted officer of Police Scotland who upholds current vetted employment with Scottish Police Authority and works in a police station within a police custody suite.
Williams v The Queen was a decision handed down by the High Court of Australia on 26 August 1987, concerning the common law right to personal liberty.
The powers of the police in Scotland, as with much of Scots law, are based on mixed elements of statute law and common law.
The powers of the police in England and Wales are defined largely by statute law, with the main sources of power being the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the Police Act 1996. This article covers the powers of police officers of territorial police forces only, but a police officer in one of the UK's special police forces can utilise extended jurisdiction powers outside of their normal jurisdiction in certain defined situations as set out in statute. In law, police powers are given to constables. All police officers in England and Wales are "constables" in law whatever their rank. Certain police powers are also available to a limited extent to police community support officers and other non warranted positions such as police civilian investigators or designated detention officers employed by some police forces even though they are not constables.
Following the common law system introduced into Hong Kong when it became a Crown colony, Hong Kong's criminal procedural law and the underlying principles are very similar to the one in the UK. Like other common law jurisdictions, Hong Kong follows the principle of presumption of innocence. This principle penetrates the whole system of Hong Kong's criminal procedure and criminal law. Viscount Sankey once described this principle as a 'golden thread'. Therefore, knowing this principle is vital for understanding the criminal procedures practised in Hong Kong.
Refusing to assist a police officer, peace officer or other law enforcement officer is an offence in various jurisdictions around the world. Some jurisdictions use the terminology '"refusing to aid a police officer" or "failure to aid a police officer".
In Australian criminal law, reasonable and probable grounds most prominently regulates police officers as a precondition of the exercise of certain powers in their function as enforcers of the law. Based on Australian common law, it is a prerequisite of most police powers. In Canada, it is defined as the point where probability replaces suspicion based on a reasonable belief; reasonableness is a legitimate expectation in the existence of specific facts, and the belief in individual circumstances can be "reasonable without being probable." Less-clearly defined in Australia, it depends on the circumstances of a case and often involves an assessment of the circumstances of a potential crime.
This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain .  | This law-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |