President of the United States
The president of the United States is the head of state and head of government of the United States of America. The president directs the executive branch of the federal government and is the commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces. In contemporary times, the president is looked upon as one of the world's most powerful political figures as the leader of the only remaining global superpower; the role includes responsibility for the world's most expensive military, which has the second largest nuclear arsenal. The president leads the nation with the largest economy by nominal GDP; the president possesses international hard and soft power. Article II of the Constitution establishes the executive branch of the federal government, it vests the executive power of the United States in the president. The power includes the execution and enforcement of federal law, alongside the responsibility of appointing federal executive, diplomatic and judicial officers, concluding treaties with foreign powers with the advice and consent of the Senate.
The president is further empowered to grant federal pardons and reprieves, to convene and adjourn either or both houses of Congress under extraordinary circumstances. The president directs the foreign and domestic policies of the United States, takes an active role in promoting his policy priorities to members of Congress. In addition, as part of the system of checks and balances, Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution gives the president the power to sign or veto federal legislation; the power of the presidency has grown since its formation, as has the power of the federal government as a whole. Through the Electoral College, registered voters indirectly elect the president and vice president to a four-year term; this is the only federal election in the United States, not decided by popular vote. Nine vice presidents became president by virtue of a president's intra-term resignation. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 sets three qualifications for holding the presidency: natural-born U. S. citizenship.
The Twenty-second Amendment precludes any person from being elected president to a third term. In all, 44 individuals have served 45 presidencies spanning 57 full four-year terms. Grover Cleveland served two non-consecutive terms, so he is counted twice, as both the 22nd and 24th president. Donald Trump of New York is the current president of the United States, he assumed office on January 20, 2017. In July 1776, during the American Revolutionary War, the Thirteen Colonies, acting jointly through the Second Continental Congress, declared themselves to be 13 independent sovereign states, no longer under British rule. Recognizing the necessity of coordinating their efforts against the British, the Continental Congress began the process of drafting a constitution that would bind the states together. There were long debates on a number of issues, including representation and voting, the exact powers to be given the central government. Congress finished work on the Articles of Confederation to establish a perpetual union between the states in November 1777 and sent it to the states for ratification.
Under the Articles, which took effect on March 1, 1781, the Congress of the Confederation was a central political authority without any legislative power. It could make its own resolutions and regulations, but not any laws, could not impose any taxes or enforce local commercial regulations upon its citizens; this institutional design reflected how Americans believed the deposed British system of Crown and Parliament ought to have functioned with respect to the royal dominion: a superintending body for matters that concerned the entire empire. The states were out from under any monarchy and assigned some royal prerogatives to Congress; the members of Congress elected a President of the United States in Congress Assembled to preside over its deliberation as a neutral discussion moderator. Unrelated to and quite dissimilar from the office of President of the United States, it was a ceremonial position without much influence. In 1783, the Treaty of Paris secured independence for each of the former colonies.
With peace at hand, the states each turned toward their own internal affairs. By 1786, Americans found their continental borders besieged and weak and their respective economies in crises as neighboring states agitated trade rivalries with one another, they witnessed their hard currency pouring into foreign markets to pay for imports, their Mediterranean commerce preyed upon by North African pirates, their foreign-financed Revolutionary War debts unpaid and accruing interest. Civil and political unrest loomed. Following the successful resolution of commercial and fishing disputes between Virginia and Maryland at the Mount Vernon Conference in 1785, Virginia called for a trade conference between all the states, set for September 1786 in Annapolis, with an aim toward resolving further-reaching interstate commercial antagonisms; when the convention failed for lack of attendance due to suspicions among most of the other states, Alexander Hamilton led the Annapolis delegates in a call for a convention to offer revisions to the Articles, to be held the next spring in Philadelphia.
Prospects for the next convention appeared bleak until James Madison and Edmund Randolph succeeded in securing George Washington's attendance to Philadelphia as a delegate for Virginia. When the Constitutional Convention convened in May 1787, the 12 state delegations in attendance (Rh
Federalism is the mixed or compound mode of government, combining a general government with regional governments in a single political system. Its distinctive feature, exemplified in the founding example of modern federalism by the United States under the Constitution of 1787, is a relationship of parity between the two levels of government established, it can thus be defined as a form of government in which there is a division of powers between two levels of government of equal status. Federalism differs from confederalism, in which the general level of government is subordinate to the regional level, from devolution within a unitary state, in which the regional level of government is subordinate to the general level, it represents the central form in the pathway of regional integration or separation, bounded on the less integrated side by confederalism and on the more integrated side by devolution within a unitary state. Leading examples of the federation or federal state include India, the United States, Mexico, Germany, Switzerland and Australia.
Some today characterize the European Union as the pioneering example of federalism in a multi-state setting, in a concept termed the federal union of states. The terms'federalism' and'confederalism' both have a root in the Latin word foedus, meaning "treaty, pact or covenant." Their common meaning until the late eighteenth century was a simple league or inter-governmental relationship among sovereign states based upon a treaty. They were therefore synonyms, it was in this sense that James Madison in Federalist 39 had referred to the new US Constitution as'neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both'. In the course of the nineteenth century the meaning of federalism would come to shift, strengthening to refer uniquely to the novel compound political form established, while the meaning of confederalism would remain at a league of states. Thus, this article relates to the modern usage of the word'federalism'. Modern federalism is a system based upon democratic rules and institutions in which the power to govern is shared between national and provincial/state governments.
The term federalist describes several political beliefs around the world depending on context. Federalism is sometimes viewed as in the context of international negotiation as "the best system for integrating diverse nations, ethnic groups, or combatant parties, all of whom may have cause to fear control by an overly powerful center." However, in some countries, those skeptical of federal prescriptions believe that increased regional autonomy is to lead to secession or dissolution of the nation. In Syria, federalization proposals have failed in part because "Syrians fear that these borders could turn out to be the same as the ones that the fighting parties have carved out."Federations such as Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia collapsed as soon as it was possible to put the model to the test. According to Daniel Ziblatt's Structuring the State, there are four competing theoretical explanations in the academic literature for the adoption of federal systems: Ideational theories, which hold that a greater degree of ideological commitment to decentralist ideas in society makes federalism more to be adopted.
Cultural-historical theories, which hold that federal institutions are more to be adopted in societies with culturally or ethnically fragmented populations. "Social contract" theories, which hold that federalism emerges as a bargain between a center and a periphery where the center is not powerful enough to dominate the periphery and the periphery is not powerful enough to secede from the center. "Infrastructural power" theories, which hold that federalism is to emerge when the subunits of a potential federation have developed infrastructures. Immanuel Kant was an advocate of federalism, noting that "the problem of setting up a state can be solved by a nation of devils" so long as they possess an appropriate constitution which pits opposing factions against each other with a system of checks and balances. In particular individual states required a federation as a safeguard against the possibility of war. On the 1st of January 1901 the nation-state of Australia came into existence as a federation.
The Australian continent was colonised by the United Kingdom in 1788, which subsequently established six self-governing, colonies there. In the 1890s the governments of these colonies all held referendums on becoming the unified, self-governing "Commonwealth of Australia" within the British Empire; when all the colonies voted in favour of federation, the Federation of Australia commenced, resulting in the establishment of the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901. The model of Australian federalism adheres to the original model of the United States of America, although it does so through a parliamentary Westminster system rather than a presidential system. In Brazil, the fall of the monarchy in 1889 by a military coup d'état led to the rise of the presidential system, headed by Deodoro da Fonseca. Aided by well-known jurist Ruy Barbosa, Fonseca established federalism in Brazil by decree, but this system of government would be confirmed by every Brazilian constitution since 1891, although some of them would distort some of the federalist principles.
The 1937 federal government had the authority to appoint State Governors at will, thus centralizing power in the hands of P
Discovery, in the law of common law jurisdictions, is a pre-trial procedure in a lawsuit in which each party, through the law of civil procedure, can obtain evidence from the other party or parties by means of discovery devices such as interrogatories, requests for production of documents, requests for admissions and depositions. Discovery can be obtained from non-parties using subpoenas; when a discovery request is objected to, the requesting party may seek the assistance of the court by filing a motion to compel discovery. Discovery evolved out of an unique feature of early equitable pleading procedure before the English Court of Chancery: among various requirements, a plaintiff's bill in equity was required to plead "positions." These were statements of evidence that the plaintiff assumed to exist in support of his pleading and which he believed lay within the knowledge of the defendant. They resembled modern requests for admissions, in that the defendant was required to plead only whether they were true or false.
At some point between the reign of Elizabeth I and the late seventeenth century, positions were replaced by interrogatories—written questions which the defendant was required to respond to in his answer to the bill based on information within his own personal knowledge as well as documents in his possession. But back interrogatories could only elicit admissible evidence and could only request evidence in support of the plaintiff's case, not either side's case. Worse, this was purely a one-way procedure, because interrogatories could only be pleaded as part of a bill. A defendant who needed to obtain evidence in support of his defenses had to file a cross-bill against the plaintiff to plead his own interrogatories. Discovery did not exist at common law, but its availability in equity attracted litigants in actions at law, they began to file bills in equity to obtain discovery in aid of actions at law. This led to another innovation in the mid-15th century: the bill to perpetuate testimony of a potential witness.
This was for witnesses whose advanced age or poor health implied they would not survive to testify at the trial of an action at law. In this type of proceeding, the parties pleaded written interrogatories which a commission would ask the witness on their behalf without parties or counsel present; the recorded answers were sealed and were not revealed to parties or counsel until shortly before the trial in which they were to be used. Major reforms enacted in New York in the late 1840s and in England in the early 1850s laid the foundation for the rise of modern discovery by imposing a clear separation between pleadings and discovery as distinct phases of procedural law. Discovery devices could now be invoked independently of the pleadings; the New York reforms went much farther, by directly merging common law and equity procedure, by expressly authorizing a new discovery device. Parties and their attorneys could now demand pretrial oral examination of opposing parties and third-party witnesses, the basis of the modern deposition.
Under the law of the United States, civil discovery is wide-ranging and may seek disclosure of information, reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This is a much broader standard than relevance, because it contemplates the exploration of evidence which might be relevant, rather than evidence, relevant. Certain types of information are protected from discovery. Other types of information may be protected, depending on the type of case and the status of the party. For instance, juvenile criminal records are not discoverable, peer review findings by hospitals in medical negligence cases are not discoverable and, depending on the case, other types of evidence may be non-discoverable for reasons of privacy, difficulty and/or expense in complying and for other reasons. Electronic discovery or "e-discovery" refers to discovery of information stored in electronic format. In practice, most civil cases in the United States are settled after discovery. After discovery, both sides are in agreement about the relative strength and weaknesses of each side's case and this results in either a settlement or summary judgment, which eliminates the expense and risks of a trial.
Discovery is available in criminal cases. Under the rule set forth in Brady v. Maryland, the prosecutor is obligated to provide to the defendant any information, exculpatory or exculpatory, without any request by the defense. Further discovery is available. For example, a discovery demand might be for production of the names of witnesses, witness statements, information about evidence, a request for opportunity to inspect tangible evidence, for any reports prepared by expert witnesses who will testify at trial. If a defendant in a criminal case requests discovery from the prosecution, the prosecutor may request reciprocal discovery; the prosecutor's right to discovery is deemed reciprocal as it arises from the defendant's reque
Your Honour and Your Honor redirect here. For a list of English honorifics, see Style. For other uses, see Your Honour A judge is a person who presides over court proceedings, either alone or as a part of a panel of judges; the powers, method of appointment and training of judges vary across different jurisdictions. The judge is supposed to conduct the trial impartially and in an open court; the judge hears all the witnesses and any other evidence presented by the barristers of the case, assesses the credibility and arguments of the parties, issues a ruling on the matter at hand based on his or her interpretation of the law and his or her own personal judgment. In some jurisdictions, the judge's powers may be shared with a jury. In inquisitorial systems of criminal investigation, a judge might be an examining magistrate; the ultimate task of a judge is to settle a legal dispute in a final and public manner, thus affirm the rule of law. Judges exercise significant governmental power, they can order police, military or judicial officials to execute searches, imprisonments, distrainments, seizures and similar actions.
However, judges supervise that trial procedures are followed, in order to ensure consistency and impartiality and avoid arbitrariness. The powers of a judge are checked by higher courts such as supreme courts. Before the trial, a pre-trial investigation collecting the facts has been conducted by police officials, such as police officers and coroners, prosecutors or public procurators; the court has three main trained court officials: the judge, the prosecutor and the defence attorney. The role of a judge varies between legal systems. In an adversarial system, as in effect in the U. S. and England, the judge functions as an impartial referee ensuring correct procedure, while the prosecution and the defense present their case to a jury selected from common citizens. The main factfinder is the jury, the judge will finalize sentencing. In smaller cases judges can issue summary judgments without proceeding to a jury trial. In an inquisitorial system, as in effect in continental Europe, there is no jury and the main factfinder is the judge, who will do the presiding and sentencing on his own.
As such, the judge is expected to apply the law directly, as in the French expression Le juge est la bouche de la loi. Furthermore, in some system investigation may be conducted by the judge, functioning as an examining magistrate. Judges may work alone in smaller cases, but in criminal and other significant cases, they work in a panel. In some civil law systems, this panel may include lay judges. Unlike professional judges, lay judges are not trained, but unlike jurors, lay judges are volunteers and may be politically appointed. Judges are assisted by law clerks and notaries in legal cases and by bailiffs or similar with security. There are professional judges. A volunteer judge, such as an English magistrate, is not required to have legal training and is unpaid. Whereas, a professional judge is required to be educated. S. this requires a degree of Juris Doctor. Furthermore, significant professional experience is required. S. judges are appointed from experienced attorneys. Judges are appointed by the head of state.
In some U. S. jurisdictions, judges are elected in a political election. Impartiality is considered important for rule of law. Thus, in many jurisdictions judges may be appointed for life, so that they cannot be removed by the executive. However, in non-democratic systems, the appointment of judges may be politicized and they receive instructions on how to judge, may be removed if their conduct doesn't please the political leadership. Judges must be able to research and process extensive lengths of documents and other case material, understand complex cases and possess a thorough understanding of the law and legal procedure, which requires excellent skills in logical reasoning and decision-making. Excellent writing skills are a necessity, given the finality and authority of the documents written. Judges work with people all the time. Judges are required to have good moral character, i.e. there must be no history of crime. Professional judges enjoy a high salary, in the U. S. the median salary of judges is $101,690 per annum, federal judges earn $208,000–$267,000 per annum.
A variety of traditions have become associated with the occupation. Gavels are used by judges in many countries, to the point that the gavel has become a symbol of a judge. In many parts of the world, judges sit on an elevated platform during trials. American judges wear black robes. American judges have ceremonial gavels, although American judges have court deputies or bailiffs and contempt of court power as their main devices to maintain decorum in the courtroom. However, in some of the Western United States, like California, judges did not always wear robes and instead wore everyday clothing. Today, some members of state supreme courts, such as the Maryland Court of Appeals wear distinct dress. In Italy and Portugal, both judges and lawyers wear particular black robes. In some countries in the Commonwealth of Nations, judges wear wigs; the long wig associated with judges is now reserved for ceremonial occasions, although it was par
A misdemeanor is any "lesser" criminal act in some common law legal systems. Misdemeanors are punished less than felonies, but theoretically more so than administrative infractions and regulatory offences. Many misdemeanors are punished with monetary fines. A misdemeanor is considered a crime of low seriousness, a felony one of high seriousness. A principle of the rationale for the degree of punishment meted out is that the punishment should fit the crime. One standard for measurement is the degree. Measurements of the degree of seriousness of a crime have been developed. In the United States, the federal government considers a crime punishable with incarceration for one year or less to be a misdemeanor. All other crimes are considered felonies. Many states employ the same or a similar distinction; the distinction between felonies and misdemeanors has been abolished by several common law jurisdictions. These jurisdictions have adopted some other classification: in the Commonwealth nations of Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, the crimes are divided into summary offences and indictable offences.
The Republic of Ireland, a former member of the Commonwealth uses these divisions. In the United States if a criminal charge for the defendant's conduct is a misdemeanor, sometimes a repeat offender will be charged with a felony offense. For example, the first time a person commits certain crimes, such as spousal assault, it is a misdemeanor, but the second time it may become a felony. In some jurisdictions, those who are convicted of a misdemeanor are known as misdemeanants. Depending on the jurisdiction, examples of misdemeanors may include: petty theft, public intoxication, simple assault, disorderly conduct, vandalism, reckless driving, discharging a firearm within city limits, possession of cannabis and in some jurisdictions first-time possession of certain other drugs, other similar crimes. Misdemeanors do not result in the loss of civil rights, but may result in loss of privileges, such as professional licenses, public offices, or public employment; such effects are known as the collateral consequences of criminal charges.
This is more common when the misdemeanor is related to the privilege in question, or when the misdemeanor involves moral turpitude—and in general is evaluated on a case-by-case basis. In the United States, misdemeanors are crimes with a maximum punishment of 12 months of incarceration in a local jail as contrasted with felons, who are incarcerated in a prison. Jurisdictions such as Massachusetts are a notable exception where the maximum punishment of some misdemeanors is up to 2.5 years. People who are convicted of misdemeanors are punished with probation, community service, short jail term, or part-time incarceration such as a sentence that may be served on the weekends; the United States Constitution provides that the President may be impeached and subsequently removed from office if found guilty by Congress for "high crimes and misdemeanors". As used in the Constitution, the term misdemeanor refers broadly to criminal acts as opposed to employing the felony-misdemeanor distinction used in modern criminal codes.
The definition of what constitutes a "high crime" or "misdemeanor" for purposes of impeachment is left to the judgment of Congress. In Singapore, misdemeanors are sentenced to months of jail sentence but with individual crimes suspects are sentenced to a harsher sentence; the penalty of vandalism is a fine not exceeding S$2,000 or imprisonment not exceeding three years, corporal punishment of not less than three strokes and not more than eight strokes of the cane. Depending on the jurisdiction, several classes of misdemeanors may exist. For example, the federal and some state governments in the United States divide misdemeanors into several classes, with certain classes punishable by jail time and others carrying only a fine. In New York law, a Class A Misdemeanor carries a maximum sentence of one year of imprisonment, while a Class B Misdemeanor "shall not exceed three months". In the United States, when a statute does not specify the class of a misdemeanor, it may be referred to as an unclassified misdemeanor.
Legislators enact such laws when they wish to impose penalties that fall outside the framework specified by each class. For example, Virginia has four classes of misdemeanors, with Class 1 and Class 2 misdemeanors being punishable by twelve-month and six-month jail sentences and Class 3 and Class 4 misdemeanors being non-jail offenses payable by fines. First-time cannabis possession is an unclassified misdemeanor in Virginia punishable by up to 30 days in jail rather than the normal fines and jail sentences of the four classes. New York has three classes of misdemeanor: A, B, Unclassified. All distinctions between felony and misdemeanour were abolished by section 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1967. Prior to this, a person prosecuted for misdemeanour was called a defendant. Convicted felon Federal crime Felony Indictable offence Infraction Misdemeanor murder Summary offence The dictionary definition of misdemeanor at Wiktionary
The term magistrate is used in a variety of systems of governments and laws to refer to a civilian officer who administers the law. In ancient Rome, a magistratus was one of the highest ranking government officers, possessed both judicial and executive powers. In other parts of the world, such as China, a magistrate was responsible for administration over a particular geographic area. Today, in some jurisdictions, a magistrate is a judicial officer who hears cases in a lower court, deals with more minor or preliminary matters. In other jurisdictions, magistrates may be volunteers without formal legal training who perform a judicial role with regard to minor matters. In ancient Rome, the word magistratus referred to one of the highest offices of state. Analogous offices in the local authorities, such as municipium, were subordinate only to the legislature of which they were members, ex officio a combination of judicial and executive power, constituting one jurisdiction. In Rome itself, the highest magistrates were members of the so-called cursus honorum -'career of honors'.
They held both judicial and executive power within their sphere of responsibility, had the power to issue ius honorarium, or magisterial law. The Consul was the highest Roman magistrate; the Praetor was the highest judge in matters of private law between individual citizens, while the Curule Aediles, who supervised public works in the city, exercised a limited civil jurisdiction in relation to the market. Roman magistrates were advised by jurists who were experts in the law; the term was maintained in most feudal successor states to the western Roman Empire. However, it was used in Germanic kingdoms in city-states, where the term magistrate was used as an abstract generic term denoting the highest office, regardless of the formal titles when, a council; the term "chief magistrate" applied to the highest official, in sovereign entities the head of state and/or head of government. Under the "civil law" systems of European countries, such as Belgium, France and the Netherlands, magistrat and magistraat are generic terms which comprise both prosecutors and judges, distinguished as the'standing' versus'sitting' magistrature, respectively.
In Portugal, besides being used in the scope of the judiciary to designate prosecutors and judges, the term magistrado was used to designate certain government officials, like the former civil governors of district. These were referred as "administrative magistrates" to distinguish them from the judiciary magistrates; the President of Portugal is considered the Supreme Magistrate of the Nation. In Finland, maistraatti is a state-appointed local administrative office whose responsibilities include keeping population information and public registers, acting as a public notary and conducting civil marriages. In Mexico's Federal Law System, a magistrado is a superior judge, hierarchically beneath the Supreme Court Justices; the magistrado reviews the cases seen by a judge in a second term if any of the parties disputes the verdict. For special cases, there are magistrados superiores who review the verdicts of special court and tribunal magistrates. In the courts of England and Wales, magistrates—also known as justices of the peace —are volunteers who hear prosecutions for and dispose of'summary offences' and some'triable-either-way offences' by making orders with regard to and placing additional requirements on offenders.
Magistrates/JPs are limited to issuing sentences of no longer than twelve months. Magistrates/JPs have other limitations in their sentencing authority with powers extending to fines, community orders which can include curfews, electronic tagging, requirements to perform unpaid work up to 300 hours, supervision for up to three years. In more serious cases, magistrates can send'either-way' offenders to the Crown Court for sentencing when the magistrate feels a penalty should be imposed, more severe than the magistrate is capable of sentencing. A wide range of other legal matters is within the remit of magistrates. In the past, magistrates have been responsible for granting licenses to sell alcohol, for instance, but this function is now exercised by local councils. Magistrates are responsible for granting search warrants to the police and other authorities. However, commission areas were replaced with Local Justice Areas by the Courts Act 2003, meaning magistrates no longer need to live within 15 miles.
Section 7 of the Courts Act 2003 states that "There shall be a commission of the peace for England and Wales—…b) addressed and not by name, to all such persons as may from time to time hold office as justices of the peace for England and Wales". Thus, every magistrate in England and Wales may act as a magistrate anywhere in Wales. There are two types of magistrates in England and Wales: justices of the peace and district judges who hold office as members of the professional judiciary. According to requirements, arou
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. Arrest warrants are issued by a 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, produce it if requested, if it is feasible to do so. Czech courts may issue an arrest warrant when it is not achievable to summon or bring in for questioning a charged person and at the same time there is a reason for detention; 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 precise description of reasons for the issuance of the arrest warrantThe 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 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. Detaining a person is only allowed under certain conditions defined by the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany. In article 104, the fundamental law determines that only a Haftrichter may order confinement that exceeds 48 hours; the former is called vorläufige Festnahme, the latter is named Haftbefehl. Arrest warrants serve the enforcement of the proper expiry for instance in the Code of Criminal Procedure, but 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. Article 2 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.
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. The procedure for issuing arrest warrants differs in each of the three legal jurisdictions. In England & Wales, arrest warrants can be issued for both 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 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 at least one of the following is true: The offence the warrant relates to is an indictable offence, or is punishable with imprisonment. The person's address is not sufficiently established to serve a summons there. Arrest warrants for witnesses can be issued if: A justice of the peace is satisfied on oath that:Any person in England or Wales is to be able to give material evidence, or produce any document or thing to be material evidence, at the summary trial of an information by a magistrates' court, 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, It is probable that a summons would not procure the attendance of the person in question.
Or if:A person has failed to attend court in response to a summons, The court is satisfied by evidence on oath that he is to be able to give material evidence or produce any document or thing to be material evidence in the proceedings, It is proved on oath, or in such other manner as may be prescribed, that he has been duly served with the summons, that a reasonable sum has been paid or tendered to him for costs and expenses, It appears to the court that there is no just excuse for the failure. In Scotland, a Warrant to Apprehend may be issued. In Northern Ireland arrest warrants are issued by a magistrate. For the police to make a lawful arrest, the arresting officer must have either probable cause to arrest, or a valid arrest warrant. A valid arrest warrant must be issued by a neutral judge or magistrate, who has determined there is probable cause for an arrest, based upon sworn testimony or an affidavit in support of the petition for a warrant; the arrest warrant must identify the person to be arrested.
If a law enforcement affiant provides false information or shows reckless disregard for the truth when providing an affidavit or testimony in support of an arrest warrant, that may constitute grounds to invalidate the warrant. These minimum requirements stem from the language contained in the Fourth Amendment. Federal statute and most jurisdictions mandate the issuance of an arrest warrant for the arrest of individuals for most 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 not needed to arrest someone suspected of a felony in a public place. In a non-emergency situation, an arrest of an individual in their home requires an arrest warrant. Probable cause can be based on either direct observation by t