THE COURTS
Title 234--RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
[234 PA. CODE CHS. 1, 2, 5, 8 AND 10]
Order Adopting New Rule 518, Amending and Renumbering Present Rule 518 as Rule 519, Amending Rules 103, 112, 130, 131, 203, 513, 516, 540, 571, 582, 801, and 1003, and Revising the Comments to Rules 514, 515, and 517; No. 281 Criminal Procedural Rules; Doc. No. 2
[32 Pa.B. 2582] The Criminal Procedural Rules Committee has prepared a Final Report explaining new Rule of Criminal Procedure 518, amendments to and renumbering of present Rule 518 as Rule 519, amendments to Rules 130, 131, 203, 513, 516, 540, 571, and 1003, the revision of the Comments to Rules 514, 515, and 517, and correlative changes to Rules 103, 112, 582, and 801. These changes provide for the use of advanced communication technology in criminal proceedings, including inter alia, preliminary arraignments and arraignments, and search warrant and arrest warrant procedures. The Final Report follows the Court's Order.
Order Per Curiam:
Now, this 10th day of May, 2002, upon the recommendation of the Criminal Procedural Rules Committee; the proposal having been published before adoption at 28 Pa.B. 3934 (August 15, 1998), 29 Pa.B. 2665 (May 22, 1999), 29 Pa.B. 4426 (August 21, 1999), 29 Pa.B. 4429 (August 21, 1999), and 29 Pa.B. 4539 (August 28, 1999), and in the Atlantic Reporter (Second Series Advance Sheets, Vols. 712, 727, 728, 733, and 734), and a Final Report to be published with this Order:
It Is Ordered pursuant to Article V, Section 10 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania that:
(1) new Rule of Criminal Procedure 518 is adopted, and present Rule 518 is amended and renumbered Rule 519;
(2) Rules 103, 112, 130, 131, 203, 513, 516, 540, 571, 582, 801, and 1003 are amended; and
(3) the Comments to Rules 514, 515, and 517 are revised, all in the following form.
This Order shall be processed in accordance with Pa.R.J.A. 103(b), and shall be effective September 1, 2002.
Annex A
TITLE 234. RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CHAPTER 1. SCOPE OF RULES, CONSTRUCTION AND DEFINITIONS, LOCAL RULES
PART A. Business of the Courts Rule 103. Definitions.
The following words and phrases, when used in any Rule of Criminal Procedure, shall have the following meanings:
ADVANCED COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY is any communication equipment that is used as a link between parties in physically separate locations, and includes, but is not limited to: systems providing for two-way simultaneous communication of image and sound; closed-circuit television; telephone and facsimile equipment; and electronic mail.
ADVANCED COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY SITE is any approved location within Pennsylvania designated by the president judge, or the president judge's designee, with advanced communication technology equipment that is available for parties in a criminal matter to communicate with others in physically separate locations as provided in these rules.
* * * * * COPY is an exact duplicate of an original document, including any required signatures, produced through mechanical or electronic means, and includes, but is not limited to: carbon copies; copies reproduced by using a photocopy machine, by transmission using facsimile equipment, or by scanning into and printing out of a computer.
* * * * * Official Note: Previous Rules 3 and 212 adopted June 30, 1964, effective January 1, 1965, suspended January 31, 1970, effective May 1, 1970; present Rule 3 adopted January 31, 1970, effective May 1, 1970; amended June 8, 1973, effective July 1, 1973; amended February 15, 1974, effective immediately; amended June 30, 1977, effective September 1, 1977; amended January 4, 1979, effective January 9, 1979; amended July 12, 1985, effective January 1, 1986; January 1, 1986 effective date extended to July 1, 1986; amended August 12, 1993, effective September 1, 1993; amended February 27, 1995, effective July 1, 1995; amended September 13, 1995, effective January 1, 1996. The January 1, 1996 effective date extended to April 1, 1996; the April 1, 1996 effective date extended to July 1, 1996; renumbered Rule 103 and Comment revised March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001; amended May 10, 2002, effective September 1, 2002.
Committee Explanatory Reports:
* * * * * Final Report explaining the May 10, 2002 amendments concerning advanced communication technology published with the Court's Order at 32 Pa. B. 2591 (May 25, 2002).
Rule 112. Publicity, Broadcasting, and Recording of Proceedings.
(A) The court or issuing authority shall:
(1) prohibit the taking of photographs, video, or motion pictures of any judicial proceedings or in the hearing room or courtroom or its environs during the judicial proceedings; and
(2) prohibit the transmission of communications by [telegraph,] telephone, radio, [or] television, or advanced communication technology from the hearing room or the courtroom or its environs during the progress of or in connection with any judicial proceedings, whether or not the court is actually in session.
* * * * * (B) The court or issuing authority may permit the taking of photographs, or radio or television broadcasting, or broadcasting by advanced communication technology, of judicial proceedings, such as naturalization ceremonies or the swearing in of public officials, which may be conducted in the hearing room or courtroom.
(C) Except as provided in paragraph (D), the stenographic, mechanical, or electronic recording, or the recording using any advanced communication technology, of any judicial proceedings by anyone other than the official court stenographer in a court case, for any purpose, is prohibited.
(D) In a judicial proceeding before an issuing authority, the issuing authority, the attorney for the Commonwealth, the affiant, or the defendant may cause a recording to be made of the judicial proceeding as an aid to the preparation of the written record for subsequent use in a case, but such recordings shall not be publicly played or disseminated in any manner unless in a court during a trial or hearing.
* * * * *
Comment * * * * * The prohibitions under this rule are not intended to preclude the use of advanced communication technology for purposes of conducting court proceedings.
Official Note: Former Rule 27, previously Rule 143, adopted January 31, 1970, effective May 1, 1970; renumbered Rule 27 September 18, 1973, effective January 1, 1974; amended February 15, 1974, effective immediately; Comment revised March 22, 1989, effective July 1, 1989; amended June 19, 1996, effective July 1, 1996; rescinded March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001, and replaced by Rule 112. Former Rule 328 adopted January 25, 1971, effective February 1, 1971; amended June 29, 1977 and November 22, 1977, effective as to cases in which the indictment or information is filed on or after January 1, 1978; Comment revised March 22, 1989, effective July 1, 1989; rescinded March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001, and replaced by Rule 112. New Rule 112 adopted March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001; amended May 10, 2002, effective September 1, 2002.
Committee Explanatory Reports:
* * * * * NEW RULE 112:
* * * * * Final Report explaining the May 10, 2002 amendments published with the Court's Order at 32 Pa.B. 2591 (May 25, 2002).
PART C. Venue, Location, and Recording of Proceedings before Issuing Authority Rule 130. Venue; Transfer of Proceedings.
(A) VENUE
All criminal proceedings in summary and court cases shall be brought before the issuing authority for the magisterial district which in the offense is alleged to have occurred or before an issuing authority on temporary assignment to serve such magisterial district, subject, however, to the following exceptions:
* * * * * (4) Whenever an arrest is made without a warrant for any summary offense arising under the Vehicle Code, which allegedly occurred on a highway of the Pennsylvania Turnpike System or any controlled or limited access highway, or any right-of-way of such System or highway, or any other highway or highways of the Commonwealth, the defendant shall be taken and the proceeding shall be brought either where the offense allegedly occurred, or before the issuing authority for any other magisterial district within the same judicial district which, in the judgment of the arresting officer, is most convenient to the place of arrest without regard to the boundary line of any magisterial district or [county] judicial district.
* * * * *
Comment [Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (A)(3), paragraph (A) of this rule governs venue between magisterial districts within the same judicial district, i.e., the matter of where a proceeding is to be brought within the judicial district having jurisdiction.]
* * * * * Venue is not altered when an issuing authority conducts a proceeding from an advanced communication technology site outside the issuing authority's magisterial district or judicial district.
See Rule 134 (Objections to Venue) for the procedures to challenge a transfer of proceedings under this rule.
* * * * * Official Note: Formerly Rule 154, adopted January 16, 1970, effective immediately; section (a)(3) adopted July 1, 1970, effective immediately; renumbered Rule 21 September 18, 1973, effective January 1, 1974; amended July 1, 1980, effective August 1, 1980; amended January 28, 1983, effective July 1, 1983; renumbered Rule 130 and amended March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001; amended April 20, 2000, effective July 1, 2000; amended September 19, 2000, effective January 1, 2001; amended May 10, 2002, effective September 1, 2002.
Committee Explanatory Reports:
* * * * * Final Report explaining the May 10, 2002 amendments concerning advanced communication technology published with the Court's Order at 32 Pa.B. (May 25, 2002).
Rule 131. Location of Proceedings Before Issuing Authority.
(A) An issuing authority within the magisterial district for which he or she is elected or appointed shall have jurisdiction and authority at [any time other than during his established office hours] all times to receive complaints, issue warrants, hold preliminary arraignments, [fix and take] set and receive bail, [and] issue commitments to jail, and hold hearings and summary trials. [at his residence within the magisterial district, but all hearings and trials before such issuing authority shall be held publicly at his established office, or at another location, within or without the magisterial district, designated by the President judge, unless an emergency exists or the number of persons lawfully assembled and entitled to be present is too great to be accommodated in such place, in which event the hearing or trial may be adjourned as quickly as may be, to a suitable place, within the magisterial district.]
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (A)(2), all preliminary arraignments shall be held in the issuing authority's established office, a night court, or some other facility within the Commonwealth designated by the president judge, or the president judge's designee.
(2) Preliminary arraignments may be conducted using advanced communication technology pursuant to Rule 540. The preliminary arraignment in these cases may be conducted from any site within the Commonwealth designated by the president judge, or the president judge's designee.
(3) All hearings and summary trials before the issuing authority shall be held publicly at the issuing authority's established office. For reasons of emergency, security, size, or in the interests of justice, the president judge, or the president judge's designee, may order that a hearing or hearings, or a trial or trials, be held in another more suitable location within the judicial district.
(4) The issuing authority may receive complaints, issue warrants, set and receive bail, and issue commitments to jail from any location within the judicial district, or from an advanced communication technology site within the Commonwealth.
* * * * *
Comment The 2002 amendments to paragraph (A) divided the paragraph into subparagraphs to more clearly distinguish between the locations for the different types of proceedings and business that an issuing authority conducts.
Paragraph (A)(3) permits the president judge, or the president judge's designee, to order that a hearing or hearings be held in a location that is different from the issuing authority's established office. Nothing in this rule is intended to preclude the president judge, or the president judge's designee, from issuing a standing order for a change in location. For example, this might be done when a state correctional institution is located in the judicial district and the president judge determines that, for security reasons, all preliminary hearings of the state correctional institution's inmates will be conducted at that prison.
See Rule 540 and Comment for the procedures governing the use of advanced communication technology in preliminary arraignments.
See Rule 130 concerning the venue when proceedings are conducted by using advanced communication technology.
Paragraph (B) of this rule is intended to facilitate compliance with the requirement that defendants be represented by counsel at the preliminary hearing. Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U. S. 1, 90 S.Ct. 1999 (1970).
Paragraph (A)(4) permits issuing authorities to perform their official duties from an advanced communication technology site within the Commonwealth. The site may be located outside the magisterial district or judicial district where the issuing authority presides.
* * * * * Official Note: Formerly Rule 156, paragraph (a) adopted January 16, 1970, effective immediately; paragraph (a) amended and paragraph (b) adopted November 22, 1971, effective immediately; renumbered Rule 22 September 18, 1973, effective January 1, 1974; renumbered Rule 131 and amended March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001; amended March 12, 2002, effective July 1, 2002; amended May 10, 2002, effective September 1, 2002.
Committee Explanatory Reports:
* * * * * Final Report explaining the May 10, 2002 amendments concerning advanced communication technology published with the Court's Order at 32 Pa.B. 2591 (May 25, 2002).
CHAPTER 2. INVESTIGATIONS
PART A. Search Warrant Rule 203. Requirements for Issuance.
(A) In the discretion of the issuing authority, advanced communication technology may be used to submit a search warrant application and affidavit(s) and to issue a search warrant.
(B) No search warrant shall issue but upon probable cause supported by one or more affidavits sworn to before the issuing authority in person or using advanced communication technology. The issuing authority, in determining whether probable cause has been established, may not consider any evidence outside the affidavits.
(C) Immediately prior to submitting a search warrant application and affidavit to an issuing authority using advanced communication technology, the affiant must personally communicate with the issuing authority by any device which, at a minimum, allows for simultaneous audio-visual communication. During the communication, the issuing authority shall verify the identity of the affiant, and orally administer an oath to the affiant.
[(B)] (D) At any hearing on a motion for the return or suppression of evidence, or for suppression of the fruits of evidence, obtained pursuant to a search warrant, no evidence shall be admissible to establish probable cause other than the affidavits provided for in paragraph [(A)] (B).
[(C)] (E) * * *
Comment Paragraph (A) recognizes that an issuing authority either may issue a search warrant using advanced communication technology or order that the law enforcement officer appear in person to apply for a search warrant.
[This rule] Paragraph (B) does not preclude oral testimony before the issuing authority, but it requires that such testimony be reduced to an affidavit prior to issuance of a warrant. All affidavits in support of an application for a search warrant must be sworn to before the issuing authority prior to the issuance of the warrant. ''Sworn'' includes ''affirmed.'' See Rule 103. The language ''sworn to before the issuing authority'' contemplates, when advanced communication technology is used, that the affiant would not be in the physical presence of the issuing authority. See paragraph (C).
Paragraph [(B)] (D) changes the procedure discussed in Commonwealth v. Crawley, 223 A.2d 885 (Pa. Super. 1966), aff'd per curiam 247 A.2d 226 (Pa. 1968). See Commonwealth v. Milliken, 300 A.2d 78 (Pa. 1973).
The requirement in paragraph [(C)] (E) of a showing of reasonable cause for a nighttime search highlights the traditional doctrine that nighttime intrusion into a citizen's privacy requires greater justification than an intrusion during normal business hours.
An affiant seeking the issuance of a search warrant, when permitted by the issuing authority, may use advanced communication technology as defined in Rule 103.
When advanced communication technology is used, the issuing authority is required by this rule to (1) determine that the evidence contained in the affidavit(s) establishes probable cause, and (2) verify the identity of the affiant.
The ''visual'' requirement in paragraph (C) must allow, at a minimum, the issuing authority to see the affiant at the time the oath is administered and the information received.
Official Note: Rule 2003 adopted March 28, 1973, effective for warrants issued 60 days hence; renumbered Rule 203 and amended March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001; amended May 10, 2002, effective September 1, 2002.
Committee Explanatory Reports:
* * * * * Final Report explaining the May 10, 2002 amendments concerning advanced communication technology published with the Court's Order at 32 Pa. B. 2591 (May 25, 2002).
CHAPTER 5. PRETRIAL PROCEDURES IN COURT CASES
PART B(3). Arrest Procedures in Court Cases
(a) Arrest Warrants Rule 513. Requirements for Issuance.
(A) In the discretion of the issuing authority, advanced communication technology may be used to submit a complaint and affidavit(s) for an arrest warrant and to issue an arrest warrant.
(B) No arrest warrant shall issue but upon probable cause supported by one or more affidavits sworn to before the issuing authority in person or using advanced communication technology. The issuing authority, in determining whether probable cause has been established, may not consider any evidence outside the affidavits.
(C) Immediately prior to submitting a complaint and affidavit to an issuing authority using advanced communication technology, the affiant must personally communicate with the issuing authority by any device which, at a minimum, allows for simultaneous audio-visual communication. During the communication, the issuing authority shall verify the identity of the affiant, and orally administer an oath to the affiant.
[(B)] (D) At any hearing on a motion challenging an arrest warrant, no evidence shall be admissible to establish probable cause for the arrest warrant other than the affidavits provided for in paragraph [(A)] (B).
Comment Paragraph (A) recognizes that an issuing authority either may issue an arrest warrant using advanced communication technology or order that the law enforcement officer appear in person to apply for an arrest warrant.
This rule does not preclude oral testimony before the issuing authority, but it requires that such testimony be reduced to an affidavit prior to issuance of a warrant. All affidavits in support of an application for an arrest warrant must be sworn to before the issuing authority prior to the issuance of the warrant. The language ''sworn to before the issuing authority'' contemplates, when advanced communication technology is used, that the affiant would not be in the physical presence of the issuing authority. See paragraph (C).
This rule carries over to the arrest warrant the requirement that the evidence presented to the issuing authority be reduced to writing and sworn to, and that only the writing is subsequently admissible to establish that there was probable cause. In these respects, the procedure is [now] similar to that applicable to search warrants. See Rule 203.
* * * * * The affidavit requirements of this rule are not intended to apply when an arrest warrant is to be issued for noncompliance with a citation, with a summons, or with a court order.
An affiant seeking the issuance of an arrest warrant, when permitted by the issuing authority, may use advanced communication technology as defined in Rule 103.
When advanced communication technology is used, the issuing authority is required by this rule to (1) determine that the evidence contained in the affidavit(s) establishes probable cause, and (2) verify the identity of the affiant.
The ''visual'' requirement in paragraph (C) must allow, at a minimum, the issuing authority to see the affiant at the time the oath is administered and the information received.
* * * * * Official Note: Rule 119 adopted April 26, 1979, effective as to arrest warrants issued on or after July 1, 1979; Comment revised August 9, 1994, effective January 1, 1995; renumbered Rule 513 and amended March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001; amended May 10, 2002, effective September 1, 2002.
Committee Explanatory Reports:
* * * * * Final Report explaining the May 10, 2002 amendments concerning advanced communication technology published with the Court's Order at 32 Pa.B. 2591 (May 25, 2002).
Rule 514. Duplicate and Alias Warrants of Arrest.
* * * * *
Comment This rule permits the use of advanced communication technology for the issuance of duplicate and alias arrest warrants.
Under this rule, warrant information transmitted by using advanced communication technology has the same force and effect as a duplicate or alias arrest warrant. This rule does not require that the transmitted warrant information be an exact copy of the original warrant for purposes of execution under Rule 515. Nothing in this rule, however, is intended to curtail the Rule 540(C) requirement that the issuing authority provide the defendant with an exact copy of the warrant at the preliminary arraignment. See Rule 513 (Requirements for Issuance).
Official Note: Original Rule 113 adopted June 30, 1964, effective January 1, 1965; suspended January 31, 1970, effective May 1, 1970. New Rule 113 adopted January 31, 1970, effective May 1, 1970; renumbered Rule 121 September 18, 1973, effective January 1, 1974; amended August 9, 1994, effective January 1, 1995; renumbered Rule 514 and amended March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001; Comment revised May 10, 2002, effective September 1, 2002.
Committee Explanatory Reports:
* * * * * Final Report explaining the May 10, 2002 Comment revision concerning advanced communication technology published with the Court's Order at 32 Pa.B. 2591 (May 25, 2002).
Rule 515. Execution of Arrest Warrant.
* * * * *
Comment * * * * * For purposes of executing an arrest warrant under this rule, warrant information transmitted by using advanced communication technology has the same force and effect as an original arrest warrant. This rule does not require that the transmitted warrant information be an exact copy of the original warrant. Nothing in this rule, however, is intended to curtail the Rule 540(C) requirement that the issuing authority provide the defendant with an exact copy of the warrant. See Rule 513 (Requirements for Issuance).
Official Note: Formerly Rule 124, adopted January 28, 1983, effective July 1, 1983; amended July 12, 1985, effective January 1, 1986; January 1, 1986 effective date extended to July 1, 1986; renumbered Rule 122 and Comment revised August 9, 1994, effective January 1, 1995; renumbered Rule 515 and amended March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001; Comment revised May 10, 2002, effective September 1, 2002.
Committee Explanatory Reports:
* * * * * Final Report explaining the May 10, 2002 Comment revision concerning advanced communication technology published with the Court's Order at 32 Pa.B. 2591 (May 25, 2002).
Rule 516. Procedure in Court Cases When Warrant of Arrest is Executed Within Judicial District of Issuance.
(A) When a defendant has been arrested in a court case, with a warrant, within the judicial district where the warrant of arrest was issued, the defendant shall be afforded a preliminary arraignment by the proper issuing authority without unnecessary delay.
(B) When a preliminary arraignment is conducted using advanced communication technology pursuant to Rule 540(A), the defendant shall be taken to an advanced communication technology site that, in the judgment of the arresting officer, is most convenient to the place of arrest without regard to the boundary of any magisterial district or judicial district.
Comment * * * * * This rule is intended to permit the use of advanced communication technology (including two-way simultaneous audio-visual communication and closed circuit television) in preliminary arraignments. See Rule 540 and Comment for the procedures governing the use of advanced communication technology in preliminary arraignments.
This rule permits a defendant to be transported to an advanced communication technology site that is located outside the judicial district of arrest for preliminary arraignment. The arresting officer should determine which site is the most convenient to the place of arrest without regard to the boundary of any magisterial district or judicial district.
Official Note: Original Rule 116 adopted June 30, 1964, effective January 1, 1965; suspended January 31, 1970, effective May 1, 1970. New Rule 116 adopted January 31, 1970, effective May 1, 1970; renumbered Rule 122 September 18, 1973, effective January 1, 1974; amended January 28, 1983, effective July 1, 1983; Comment revised July 12, 1985, effective January 1, 1986, effective date extended to July 1, 1986; renumbered Rule 123 and Comment revised August 9, 1994, effective January 1, 1995; renumbered Rule 516 and Comment revised March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001; amended May 10, 2002, effective September 1, 2002.
Committee Explanatory Reports:
* * * * * Final Report explaining the May 10, 2002 amendments concerning advanced communication technology published with the Court's Order at 32 Pa.B. 2591 (May 25, 2002).
Rule 517. Procedure in Court Cases When Warrant of Arrest is Executed Outside Judicial District of Issuance.
* * * * *
Comment Nothing in this rule prevents a defendant from consenting to dispense with the procedures in paragraph (A) if the defendant is afforded a preliminary arraignment without unnecessary delay in the judicial district where the warrant was issued.
See Rule 518 for using advanced communication technology following execution of arrest warrant outside the judicial district of issuance.
* * * * * Official Note: Original Rule 117 adopted June 30, 1964, effective January 1, 1965; suspended January 31, 1970, effective May 1, 1970. New Rule 117 adopted January 31, 1970, effective May 1, 1970; renumbered Rule 123 September 18, 1973, effective January 1, 1974; amended January 28, 1983, effective July 1, 1983; renumbered Rule 124 and amended August 9, 1994, effective January 1, 1995; amended December 27, 1994, effective April 1, 1995; renumbered Rule 517 and amended March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001; Comment revised May 10, 2002, effective September 1, 2002.
Committee Explanatory Reports:
* * * * * Final Report explaining the May 10, 2002 Comment revision concerning advanced communication technology published with the Court's Order at 32 Pa.B. 2591 (May 25, 2002).
(b). Arrests Without Warrant (Editor's Note: The following rule is new and is printed in regular face to enhance readability.)
Rule 518. Using Advanced Communication Technology in Court Cases When Warrant of Arrest is Executed Outside Judicial District of Issuance.
(A) When a defendant has been arrested in a court case, with a warrant, outside the judicial district where the warrant of arrest was issued, the defendant may be taken for a preliminary arraignment or the posting of bail to an advanced communication technology site that, in the judgment of the arresting officer, is most convenient to the place of arrest without regard to the boundary of any magisterial district or judicial district; and
(1) the defendant must be taken to the advanced communication technology site without unnecessary delay.
(2) The preliminary arraignment may be conducted pursuant to Rule 540 by the proper issuing authority in the magisterial district or judicial district in which the warrant was issued; or
(3) the defendant may post bail as permitted by law with the proper issuing authority in the judicial district in which the defendant was arrested.
(B) If a preliminary arraignment is conducted pursuant to paragraph (A)(2), and the defendant does not post bail, the issuing authority who conducted the preliminary arraignment shall commit the defendant to the jail in the judicial district in which the defendant was arrested or the judicial district in which the warrant was issued.
(1) The issuing authority may transmit to the jail any required documents by using advanced communication technology.
(2) When a monetary condition of bail is set by the issuing authority who conducted the preliminary arraignment, the payment of the monetary condition shall be made to either the issuing authority who imposed the monetary condition or the proper issuing authority in the judicial district in which the defendant was arrested.
(C) Pursuant to paragraph (A)(3), when the defendant appears via advanced communication technology before the proper issuing authority in the judicial district in which the defendant was arrested, the procedures set forth in Rule 517 shall be followed.
Comment This rule sets forth the procedures for using advanced communication technology when a defendant is arrested with a warrant outside the judicial district in which it was issued: when advanced communication technology is available, the defendant could be preliminarily arraigned by the issuing authority who issued the warrant, or the ''on-duty'' issuing authority in that judicial district, or ''appear'' via advanced communication technology before the proper issuing authority for the purpose of posting bail.
See Rule 130 concerning venue.
See Rule 132 concerning the continuous availability and temporary assignment of issuing authorities.
When advanced communication technology is available only in the judicial district of arrest, the case would proceed under paragraph (A)(3), unless the defendant consents to dispense with the procedures in paragraph (A)(3), and the defendant is afforded a preliminary arraignment without unnecessary delay in the judicial district in which the warrant was issued.
See Rule 540 and Comment for the procedures governing the use in preliminary arraignments of two-way simultaneous audio-visual communication, which is a form of advanced communication technology.
This rule permits a defendant to be transported to an advanced communication technology site that is located outside the judicial district of arrest. The arresting officer should determine which site is the most convenient to the place of arrest without regard to the boundary of any magisterial district or judicial district.
Official Note: New Rule 518 adopted May 10, 2002, effective September 1, 2002.
Committee Explanatory Reports:
Final Report explaining the May 10, 2002 adoption of new Rule 518 published with the Court's Order at 32 Pa.B. 2591 (May 25, 2002).
Rule [518] 519. Procedure in Court Cases Initiated by Arrest Without Warrant.
(A) PRELIMINARY ARRAIGNMENT
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (B), when a defendant has been arrested without a warrant in a court case, a complaint shall be filed against the defendant and the defendant shall be afforded a preliminary arraignment by the proper issuing authority without unnecessary delay.
(2) When a preliminary arraignment is conducted by advanced communication technology pursuant to Rule 540(A), the defendant shall be taken to an advanced communication technology site that, in the judgment of the arresting officer, is most convenient to the place of arrest without regard to the boundary of any magisterial district or judicial district.
(B) RELEASE
(1) When the arresting officer deems it appropriate, the officer may promptly release from custody a defendant who has been arrested without a warrant, rather than taking the defendant before the issuing authority, when the following conditions have been met:
[(1)] (a) * * *
[(2)] (b) * * *
[(3)] (c) * * *
[(4)] (d) * * *
[(5)] (e) * * *
[(C)] (2) When a defendant is released pursuant to paragraph (B)(1), a complaint shall be filed against the defendant within 5 days of the defendant's release. Thereafter, a summons, not a warrant of arrest, shall be issued and the case shall proceed as provided in Rule 510.
Comment Paragraph (A) requires that the defendant receive a prompt preliminary arraignment. See Rule 540 (Preliminary Arraignment).
Under paragraph (A), following arrest, the officer may file the complaint with the issuing authority using advanced communication technology.
Paragraph (A) is intended to permit the use of advanced communication technology (including two-way simultaneous audio-visual communication equipment and closed circuit television) in preliminary arraignments. See Rule 540 and Comment for the procedures governing the use of advanced communication technology in preliminary arraignments.
Paragraph (A)(2) permits a defendant to be transported to an advanced communication technology site that is located outside the judicial district of arrest for preliminary arraignment. The arresting officer should determine which site is the most convenient to the place of arrest without regard to the boundary of any magisterial district or judicial district.
Paragraph (B)(1) provides an exception to the requirement that a defendant be afforded a preliminary arraignment after a warrantless arrest. It permits an arresting officer, in specified circumstances, to release a defendant rather than take the defendant before an issuing authority for preliminary arraignment. Prior to 1994, this exception applied to all DUI cases, but in other cases was only available at the election of individual judicial districts. With the 1994 amendments, the exception is now an option available to arresting officers statewide and may not be prohibited by local rule.
* * * * * Appropriate circumstances for following the procedure under paragraph (B)(1) may vary. Among the factors that may be taken into account are whether the defendant resides in the Commonwealth, and whether he or she can safely be released without danger to self or others.
* * * * * With reference to the provisions of paragraph [(C)] (B)(2) relating to the issuance of a summons, see also Part B(2) of this Chapter, Summons Procedures.
* * * * * Official Note: Original Rule 118 and 118(a) adopted June 30, 1964, effective January 1, 1965, suspended January 31, 1970, effective May 1, 1970. New Rule 118 adopted January 31, 1970, effective May 1, 1970; renumbered Rule 130 September 18, 1973, effective January 1, 1974; amended December 14, 1979, effective April 1, 1980; amended April 24, 1981, effective July 1, 1981; amended January 28, 1983, effective July 1, 1983; Comment revised July 12, 1985, effective January 1, 1986; January 1, 1986 effective date extended to July 1, 1986; renumbered Rule 102 and amended August 9, 1994, effective January 1, 1995; Comment revised September 26, 1996, effective immediately; renumbered Rule 518 and amended March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001; renumbered Rule 519 and amended May 10, 2002, effective September 1, 2002.
Committee Explanatory Reports:
* * * * * Final Report explaining the May 10, 2002 renumbering and amendments concerning advanced communication technology published with the Court's Order at 32 Pa.B. 2591 (May 25, 2002).
PART D. Proceedings in Court Cases Before Issuing Authorities Rule 540. Preliminary Arraignment.
(A) In the discretion of the issuing authority, the preliminary arraignment of the defendant may be conducted by using two-way simultaneous audio-visual communication. When counsel for the defendant is present, the defendant must be permitted to communicate fully and confidentially with defense counsel immediately prior to and during the preliminary arraignment.
(B) At the preliminary arraignment, a copy of the complaint accepted for filing pursuant to Rule 508 shall be given to the defendant.
[(B)] (C) * * *
[(C)] (D) If the defendant was arrested without a warrant pursuant to Rule [518] 519, unless the issuing authority makes a determination of probable cause, the defendant shall not be detained.
[(D)] (E) * * *
[(E)] (F) Unless the preliminary hearing is waived by a defendant who is represented by counsel, the issuing authority shall:
(1) fix a day and hour for a preliminary hearing which shall not be less than 3 nor more than 10 days after the preliminary arraignment, unless:
(a) extended for cause shown [,] ; or
* * * * * [(F)] (G) * * *
[(G)] (H) * * *
Comment A preliminary arraignment as provided in this rule bears no relationship to arraignment in criminal courts of record. See Rule 571.
Within the meaning of Rule 540, counsel is present when physically with the defendant or with the issuing authority.
Under paragraph (A), the issuing authority has discretion to order that a defendant appear in person for the arraignment.
Under paragraph (A), two-way simultaneous audio-visual communication is a form of advanced communication technology.
See Rule 130 concerning venue when proceedings are conducted using advanced communication technology.
Paragraph [(B)] (C) requires that the defendant receive copies of the arrest warrant and the supporting affidavit(s) at the time of the preliminary arraignment. See also Rules 513(A), 208(A), and 1003.
Paragraph [(B)] (C) includes a narrow exception which permits the issuing authority to provide copies of the arrest warrant and supporting affidavit(s) on the first business day after the preliminary arraignment. This exception applies only when copies of the arrest warrant and affidavit(s) are not available at the time the issuing authority conducts the preliminary arraignment, and is intended to address purely practical situations such as the unavailability of a copier at the time of the preliminary arraignment.
* * * * * When a defendant has not been promptly released from custody after a warrantless arrest, the defendant must be afforded a preliminary arraignment by the proper issuing authority without unnecessary delay. See Rule [518(A)] 519(A).
Under paragraph [(C)] (D), if a defendant has been arrested without a warrant, the issuing authority must make a prompt determination of probable cause before a defendant may be detained. See Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991). The determination may be based on written affidavits, an oral statement under oath, or both.
Official Note: Original Rule 119 adopted June 30, 1964, effective January 1, 1965; suspended January 31, 1970, effective May 1, 1970. New Rule 119 adopted January 31, 1970, effective May 1, 1970; renumbered Rule 140 September 18, 1973, effective January 1, 1974; amended April 26, 1979, effective July 1, 1979; amended January 28, 1983, effective July 1, 1983; rescinded August 9, 1994, effective January 1, 1995. New Rule 140 adopted August 9, 1994, effective January 1, 1995; amended September 13, 1995, effective January 1, 1996. The January 1, 1996 effective date extended to April 1, 1996; the April 1, 1996 effective date extended to July 1, 1996; renumbered Rule 540 and amended March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001; amended May 10, 2002, effective September 1, 2002.
Committee Explanatory Reports:
* * * * * Final Report explaining the May 10, 2002 amendments concerning advanced communication technology published with the Court's Order at 32 Pa.B. 2591 (May 25, 2002).
PART F. Procedures Following Filing of Information Rule 571. Arraignment.
(A) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph [(c)] (D), arraignment shall be in such form and manner as provided by local court rule. Notice of arraignment shall be given to the defendant as provided in Rule 113 or by first class mail. Unless otherwise provided by local court rule, or postponed by the court for cause shown, arraignment shall take place no later than 10 days after the information has been filed.
(B) In the discretion of the court, the arraignment of the defendant may be conducted by using two-way simultaneous audio-visual communication. When the counsel for the defendant is present, the defendant must be permitted to communicate fully and confidentially with defense counsel immediately prior to and during the arraignment.
(C) At arraignment, the defendant shall be advised of:
* * * * * [(C)] (D) A defendant may waive appearance at arraignment if the following requirements are met:
* * * * * (2) the defendant and counsel sign and file with the clerk of courts a waiver of appearance at arraignment that acknowledges the defendant:
* * * * * (b) understands the rights and requirements contained in paragraph [(B)] (C) of this rule; and
* * * * *
Comment * * * * * Within the meaning of paragraph (B), counsel is present when physically with the defendant or with the judicial officer presiding over the arraignment.
Under paragraph (B), the court has discretion to order that a defendant appear in person for the arraignment.
Under paragraph (B), two-way simultaneous audio-visual communication is a form of advanced communication technology.
Paragraph [(C)] (D) is intended to facilitate, for defendants represented by counsel, waiver of appearance at arraignment through procedures such as arraignment by mail. For the procedures to provide notice of court proceedings requiring the defendant's presence, see Rule 9024.
Official Note: Formerly Rule 317, adopted June 30, 1964, effective January 1, 1965; paragraph (b) amended November 22, 1971, effective immediately; paragraphs (a) and (b) amended and paragraph (e) deleted November 29, 1972, effective 10 days hence; paragraphs (a) and (c) amended February 15, 1974, effective immediately. Rule 317 renumbered Rule 303 and amended June 29, 1977, amended and paragraphs (c) and (d) deleted October 21, 1977, and amended November 22, 1977, all effective as to cases in which the indictment or information is filed on or after January 1, 1978; Comment revised January 28, 1983, effective July 1, 1983; amended October 21, 1983, effective January 1, 1984; amended August 12, 1993, effective September 1, 1993; rescinded May 1, 1995, effective July 1, 1995, and replaced by new Rule 303. New Rule 303 adopted May 1, 1995, effective July 1, 1995; renumbered Rule 571 and amended March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001; amended November 17, 2000, effective January 1, 2001; amended May 10, 2002, effective September 1, 2002.
Committee Explanatory Reports:
* * * * * Final Report explaining the May 10, 2002 amendments concerning advanced communication technology published with the Court's Order at 32 Pa.B. 2591 (May 25, 2002).
[Continued on next Web Page]
No part of the information on this site may be reproduced for profit or sold for profit.This material has been drawn directly from the official Pennsylvania Bulletin full text database. Due to the limitations of HTML or differences in display capabilities of different browsers, this version may differ slightly from the official printed version.
