Statute of limitations

 Common law legal system might have a statute, for example, limiting the time for prosecution of crimes designated as misdemeanors to two years after the offense occurred. Under such a statute, if a person is discovered to have committed a misdemeanor three years ago, the time has expired for the prosecution of the misdemeanor. While on one hand it may seem unfair to forbid prosecution of crimes that law enforcement can now prove to the standard required by law (cf., e.g., Beyond a reasonable doubt, Clear and convincing evidence, and Preponderance of the evidence), the purpose of a statute of limitations or its equivalent is to ensure that the possibility of punishment for an act committed sufficiently long ago cannot give rise to either a person's incarceration or the criminal justice system's activation. In short, unless the crime is exceptionally heinous in nature, social justice as enacted through law has compromised that lesser crimes from long ago are best let be rather than distract attention from contemporary serious crimes.
There is a statute of limitations for a few reasons. One is that over time evidence of all sorts can be corrupted or disappear. Memories fade, crime scenes are changed, and companies get rid of records. So, the best time to bring a lawsuit is while the evidence is not lost and as close to the alleged egregious behavior as possible. Another reason is that people want to get on with their lives and not have legal battles from their past come up unexpectedly. The injured party has a responsibility to quickly bring their charges so that the process can begin.
Note, however, that limitations periods may begin when the cause of action is deemed to have arisen, or when a plaintiff had reason to know of the harm, rather than at the time of the original event. This distinction is significant in cases in which an earlier event causes a later harm (e.g., a surgeon negligently operates on a patient, who subsequently suffers the consequences of that negligence years later).
In a related concept, contracts may also have a term under which they may be the basis of a suit, and after which a plaintiff is held to have waived any right to claim. Under Article VI of the United States Constitution, private contracts cannot be abridged; this provision has been held by the United States Supreme Court to mean that the federal government or a State can only vitiate a contract if it directly opposes an important public policy. Similarly, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, codified into law applicable to European Union countries by the passage civil lawsuit) is said to have accrued when the event beginning its time limitation occurs. Sometimes this is the event itself that is the subject of the suit or prosecution (such as a crime or personal injury), but it may also be an event such as the discovery of a condition one wishes to redress, such as discovering a defect in a manufactured good, or in the case of controversial "repressed memory" cases where someone discovers memories of childhood sexual abuse long afterwards.

Miranda warning

The Miranda warning (also referred to as Miranda rights) is a warning that is required to be given by police in the United States to criminal suspects in police custody (or in a custodial interrogation) before they are interrogated to inform them about their constitutional rights. In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court of the United States held that an elicited incriminating statement by a suspect will not constitute admissible evidence unless the suspect was informed of the right to decline to make self-incriminatory statements and the right to legal counsel (hence the so-called "Miranda rights"), and makes a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver of those rights.^{[Note 1]} The Miranda warning is not a condition of detention, but rather a safeguard against self-incrimination; as a result, if law enforcement officials decline to offer a Miranda warning to an individual in their custody, they may still interrogate that person and act upon the knowledge gained, but may not use that person's statements to incriminate him or her in a criminal trial.
As of a June 1, 2010, U.S. Supreme Court decision (Berghuis v. Thompkins), suspects still have the 5th Amendment right to remain silent, and the 6th Amendment right to the assistance of counsel; however, if a suspect waives these rights and interrogation begins, the right to halt further questioning by the police must be exercised explicitly, by invoking the 5th and/or 6th Amendment rights.

Arrest

An arrest is the act of depriving a person of his or her liberty usually in relation to the investigation and prevention of crime or harm to others and oneself as well. The term is Anglo-Norman in origin and is related to the French word arrêt, meaning "stop".
The word 'arrest' when used in its ordinary and natural sense, means the apprehension or restraint of a person, or the deprivation of a person's liberty. The question whether the person is under arrest or not depends not on the legality of the arrest, but on whether the person has been deprived of personal liberty of movement. When used in the legal sense in the procedure connected with criminal offenses, an arrest consists in the taking into custody of another person under authority empowered by law, to be held or detained to answer a criminal charge or to prevent the commission of a criminal or further offense. The essential elements to constitute an arrest in the above sense are that there must be an intent to arrest under the authority, accompanied by a seizure or detention of the person in the manner known to law, which is so understood by the person arrested. (Para 46 of Directorate of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan (1994)3 SCC 440)
Police and various other bodies have powers of arrest. In some places the power is more general; for example in England and Wales—with the notable exception of the Monarch, the head of state—any person can arrest "anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing, have committed or be guilty of committing an indictable offence", although certain conditions must be met before taking such action.

Probationers and parolees

In early cases, the Supreme Court held that when a person is on probation, the standard required for a search to be lawful is lowered from "probable cause" to "reasonable grounds" or "reasonable suspicion." Specifically, the degree of individualized suspicion required of a search was a determination of when there is a sufficiently high probability that criminal conduct is occurring to make the intrusion on the individual's privacy interest reasonable. The U.S. Supreme held that "[a]lthough the Fourth Amendment ordinarily requires the degree of probability embodied in the term 'probable cause,' a lesser degree satisfies the Constitution when the balance of governmental and private interests makes such a standard reasonable...When an officer has reasonable suspicion that a probationer subject to a search condition is engaged in criminal activity, there is enough likelihood that criminal conduct is occurring that an intrusion on the probationer's significantly diminished privacy interests is reasonable."
Later, in Samson v. California, the Supreme Court ruled that reasonable suspicion is not even necessary: "The California Legislature has concluded that, given the number of inmates the State paroles and its high recidivism rate, a requirement that searches be based on individualized suspicion would undermine the State's ability to effectively supervise parolees and protect the public from criminal acts by reoffenders. This conclusion makes eminent sense. Imposing a reasonable suspicion requirement, as urged by petitioner, would give parolees greater opportunity to anticipate searches and conceal criminality." The court held that reasonableness, not individualized suspicion, is the touchstone of the Fourth Amendment. It has been proposed that Fourth Amendment rights be extended to probationers and parolees, but such proposals have not gained traction. There is not much that remains of the Fourth Amendment rights of probationers after waiving their right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. An essay called "They Released Me from My Cage...But They Still Keep Me Handcuffed" was written in response to the Samson decision. It has been argued that the requirement that a police officer must have individualized suspicion before searching a parolee's person and home was long considered a foundational element of the Court's analysis of Fourth Amendment questions, and that abandoning it in the name of crime prevention represents an unprecedented blow to individual liberties.

Exceptions of search warrant

In certain cases a search warrant is not required, such as where consent is given by a person in control of the object or property to be searched. Some commonly cited exigent circumstances are: hot pursuit of a felon (to prevent a felon's escape or ability to harm others); imminent destruction of evidence before a warrant can properly be obtained; emergency searches (such as where someone is heard screaming for help inside a dwelling); or a search incident to arrest (to mitigate the risk of harm to the arresting officers specifically).
Another exception is when evidence is in plain view - if the officer is legitimately on the premises, his observation is from a legitimate vantage point, and it is immediately apparent that the evidence is contraband (for example, a cannabis cigarette on the front seat of a car while the officer has pulled the suspect over for a seat belt violation), the officer is within his right to seize the object in question.
When police arrest an individual shortly after he exits a vehicle, the police may conduct a full search of the suspect's person, any area within that person's immediate reach, and the passenger compartment of the vehicle which was recently occupied, for weapons or other contraband. (However, a recent Supreme Court decision limits such searches to circumstances where the arrested person has the possibility of accessing the vehicle, or when the vehicle could contain evidence of the crime that the person is being arrested for.) If the subject is arrested in a home, police may search the room in which they were arrested, and perform a 'protective sweep' of the premises where there is reasonable suspicion that other individuals may be hiding. Searches are also allowed in emergency situations where the public is in danger.
With rented property, a landlord may not authorize law enforcement to search a tenant's premises without a search warrant, and a warrant must be obtained under the same guidelines as if it were the tenant's own home. But in some jurisdictions, a hotel room may be searched by consent of the hotel's management without the guest's approval or a warrant.

Search warrant

A search warrant is a court order issued by a judge or magistrate judge that authorizes law enforcement officers to conduct a search of a person or location for evidence of a crime and to confiscate evidence if it is found.
Jurisdictions that respect the rule of law and a right to privacy put constraints on the powers of police investigators, and typically require search warrants, or an equivalent procedure, for searches conducted as part of a criminal investigation. An exception is usually made for "hot pursuit": if a criminal flees the scene of a crime and the police officer follows him, the officer has the right to enter a property in which the criminal has sought shelter. Conversely, in authoritarian regimes, the police typically have the right to search property and people without having to provide justification, or without having to secure the permission of a court.

United Kingdom

Search warrants are issued by a magistrate and require a constable to provide evidence to support the application of the warrant. In the vast majority of cases where the police already hold someone in custody, searches of premises can be made without a search warrant under Section 18 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE), which requires only the authority of an inspector.

United States of America

Under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, most searches by the police require a search warrant based on probable cause, although there are exceptions. Any police entry of an individual's home always requires a warrant (for either search or arrest), absent exigent circumstances, or the free and voluntary consent of a person with reasonably apparent use of or control over the property.
Under the Fourth Amendment, searches must be reasonable and specific. This means that a search warrant must be specific as to the specified object to be searched for and the place to be searched. Other items, rooms, outbuildings, persons, vehicles, etc. may require additional search warrants.
To obtain a search warrant, an officer must first prove that probable cause exists before a magistrate or judge, based upon direct information (i.e. obtained by the officer's personal observation) or hearsay information. Hearsay information can even be obtained by oral testimony given over a telephone, or through an anonymous or confidential informant, so long as probable cause exists based on the totality of the circumstances. Both property and persons can be seized under a search warrant. The standard for a search warrant is lower than the quantum of proof required for a later conviction. The rationale is that the evidence that can be collected without a search warrant may not be sufficient to convict, but may be sufficient to suggest that enough evidence to convict could be found using the warrant.
U.S. police do not need a search warrant to search a vehicle they stop on the road or in a non-residential area if they have probable cause to believe it contains contraband or evidence of a crime.^{[citation needed]} In that case, police may search the passenger compartment, trunk, and any containers inside the vehicle capable of holding the suspected article. By comparison, under Australian law, police can exhaustively search any vehicle on a public road, and any electronic devices therein (mobile phone, computer), without the responsible persons' permission, for evidence of criminal acts, with or without proof or suspicion of any kind.
Police do not need a search warrant, or even probable cause, to perform a limited search of a suspect's outer clothing for weapons, if police have a reasonable suspicion to justify the intrusion - a Terry 'stop and frisk.'
In the United States, the issue of federal warrants is determined under Title 18 of the United States Code. The law has been restated and extended under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Federal search warrants may be prepared on Form AO 93, Search and Seizure Warrant. Each state also enacts its own laws governing the issuance of search warrants.

Arrest warrant

An arrest warrant is a warrant issued by and on behalf of the state, which authorizes the arrest and detention of an individual.

Canada

Arrest warrants are issued by a judge or justice of the peace under section 83.29 of the Criminal Code of Canada. The judge must not be satisfied that the person named in the warrant is (a) is evading service of the order, is about to abscond, or attend the examination, or did remain in attendance, as required by the order.
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.

United Kingdom

The procedure for issuing arrest warrants differs in each of the three legal jurisdictions.

England & Wales

In England & 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:

• the offence to which the warrant relates is an indictable offence or is punishable with imprisonment, or
• the person's address is not sufficiently established for a summons to be served on him.

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 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,
  • 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
  • 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 likely to be able to give material evidence or produce any document or thing likely 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, and that a reasonable sum has been paid or tendered to him for costs and expenses, and
  • it appears to the court that there is no just excuse for the failure.

Defence (Legal)

In civil proceedings and criminal prosecutions under the common law, a defendant may raise a defense (or defence) in an attempt to avoid criminal or civil liability. Besides contesting the accuracy of any allegation made against him or her in a criminal or civil proceeding, a defendant may also make allegations against the prosecutor or plaintiff or raise a defense, arguing that, even if the allegations against the defendant are true, the defendant is nevertheless not liable.
Since a defense is raised by the defendant in a direct attempt to avoid what would otherwise result in liability, the defendant typically holds the burden of proof. For example, if a defendant in an assault and battery case attempts to claim provocation, the victim of said assault and battery would not have to prove that he did not provoke the plaintiff; the defendant would have to prove that the plaintiff did.

Constitutional violations

Should there not be Constitutional violations, much of the work of a criminal defense attorney then turns to trial preparation. Any proposed settlement agreement must be compared to the best judgment about the outcome after trial. A criminal defense lawyer will usually discuss potential plea agreements with the prosecuting attorney, as an alternative to exercising the defendant's trial right and other rights. Plea agreements, when made, can be characterized as either charge agreements (often involving a less serious charge), sentencing agreements (involving a lesser sentence), or both.
The process of becoming a Criminal defense attorney is similar to any other legal practice area. To become a criminal defense lawyer, a person will typically complete their undergraduate degree and graduate from a law school. After graduating law school and passing the bar exam, the new lawyer can begin practicing criminal law.

Criminal Defense Lawyer

In the United States, criminal defense lawyers deal with the issues surrounding an arrest, a criminal investigation, criminal charges, sentencing, appeals and post-trial issues. An arrest simply means a police officer or judge believes reasonable suspicion exists that a person committed a crime. An arrest does not necessarily mean that a criminal charge has been claimed by a prosecuting attorney. Criminal defense lawyers also deal with the substantive issues of the crimes with which his or her clients are charged. Criminal defense lawyers may also help clients before charges have been filed by a prosecuting attorney. This is done when someone believes he or she is being investigated or is arrested. The person may hire a criminal defense lawyer to help with counsel and representation dealing with police or other investigators, perform his or her own investigation, and at times present exculpatory evidence that negates potential charge by the prosecutor. Criminal defense lawyers in the United States who are employed by governmental entities such as counties, state governments, and the federal governments are often referred to as public defenders or court-appointed attorneys. A considerable aspect of this work requires the criminal defense lawyer to have a clear understanding of the United States Constitution. Specifically, the Fourth Amendment protects against unlawful searches and seizures while the Fifth and Sixth Amendments govern the right to remain silent so one does not become a witness against himself. All of the Amendments to the United States Constitution are guaranteed to the criminal accused against the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, a criminal defense lawyer must understand each of these rights. Initial work on any criminal case involves review of the charges and the claimed facts, and analysis of constitutional violations, the prima facie burden of the prosecution, defenses, and affirmative defenses; as well as potential sentence and sentencing issues. Early stages of a criminal case may involve a grand jury or preliminary hearing to determine if there exists probable cause for the case to continue. A violation of the Fourth or Fifth Amendment, or other illegally obtained evidence could result in evidence being inadmissible at trial. Accordingly, a criminal defense lawyer often spends a considerable amount of time reviewing all documentation to determine if the case can be won on Constitutional Grounds due to illegal conduct by the government.