Rule 3.1. Issuance of arrest warrant or summons

Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure

Rule 3. Arrest warrant or summons upon commencement of criminal

proceedings; search warrant.

Rule 3.1. Issuance of arrest warrant or summons.

(a)

ISSUANCE. Upon return of an indictment, or upon a finding of probable

cause made pursuant to Rule 2.4, the judge or magistrate shall immediately cause

to be issued an arrest warrant or a summons, as provided in Rule 3.2.

(b)

SUMMONS. If the defendant is not in custody, if the offense charged is

bailable as a matter of right, and if there is no reason to believe that the defendant

will not respond to the summons, a summons may be issued, at the sole discretion

of the issuing judge or magistrate.

(c)

SUBSEQUENT ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF ARREST. If a defendant who has

been duly summoned fails to appear, or if after issuance of a summons there is

reasonable cause to believe that the defendant will fail to appear, or if for any

reason the summons cannot be served or delivered, a writ of arrest shall issue.

More than one writ of arrest or summons may issue on the same complaint or

indictment.

(d)

DOCKETING CASE. A case shall be docketed upon service of a

summons or upon the defendant’s arrest.

Committee Comments

Rule 3.1(a) is a restatement of Alabama law in that a warrant for the arrest

of a defendant will issue only if it reasonably appears from a complaint or from

affidavits filed with the complaint or testimony of witnesses that an offense has

been committed and there is probable cause to believe that the defendant

committed it. Art. I, § 5, Alabama Constitution of 1901, provides that “no warrants

shall issue to … seize any person or thing without probable cause, supported by

oath or affirmation.”

In Giordenello v. United States, 357 U.S. 480, 485-86, 78 S.Ct

filed with the complaint or testimony of witnesses that an offense has

been committed and there is probable cause to believe that the defendant

committed it. Art. I, § 5, Alabama Constitution of 1901, provides that “no warrants

shall issue to … seize any person or thing without probable cause, supported by

oath or affirmation.”

In Giordenello v. United States, 357 U.S. 480, 485-86, 78 S.Ct. 1245, 1250,

2 L.Ed.2d 1503 (1958), the United States Supreme Court held that “[t]he language

of the Fourth Amendment, that ‘… no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable

cause …’ of course applies to arrest as well as search warrants.” Cf. Whiteley v.

Warden, Wyoming State Penitentiary, 401 U.S. 560, 91 S.Ct. 1031, 28 L.Ed.2d 306

(1971).

See Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983),

in which the “totality-of-the-circumstances” test was adopted as basis for probable

cause for issuance of a warrant and in which the two-pronged test of Aguilar v.

Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964), was abandoned.

Rule 3.1(b) is new to Alabama as a matter of official rule (if not occasional

informal practice). The judge or magistrate is permitted to issue a summons when

an arrest under a warrant is not necessary to secure the presence of the defendant

and there is little apprehension that the defendant will flee. The rule makes no

distinction between the use of a summons in felonies or misdemeanors. A similar

plan has been adopted by the federal system in Rule 4(a), Fed.R.Crim.P., and Rule

221, Unif.R.Crim.P.

There are many reasons to use a summons in lieu of an arrest warrant in

certain cases. The use of a summons reduces the burden that the criminal justice

system places on those accused of crime. While in custody, a defendant represents

a heavy financial burden on the state

eanors. A similar

plan has been adopted by the federal system in Rule 4(a), Fed.R.Crim.P., and Rule

221, Unif.R.Crim.P.

There are many reasons to use a summons in lieu of an arrest warrant in

certain cases. The use of a summons reduces the burden that the criminal justice

system places on those accused of crime. While in custody, a defendant represents

a heavy financial burden on the state. All indications from other jurisdictions and

the federal system are that the use of the summons in lieu of an arrest warrant has

been operationally successful, and its use is recommended where indicated. The

approach taken here is consistent with the release standards favoring

recognizance bonds as set out in Rule 7. The results will not be essentially different

from the practice engaged in by some district attorneys and law enforcement

officers of “sending word” to come in and accept service of a warrant.

While there is no specific sanction imposed against one who fails to respond

to a summons, Rule 3.1(c) makes it clear that should the defendant fail to respond,

or if there later arises a reasonable likelihood that the defendant will not respond

as ordered, or if the summons cannot be served, an arrest warrant must be issued.

Also, it is within the inherent power of the court to issue more than one arrest

warrant or summons in a particular case, as needed, based upon a single

complaint.