Sup. Ct. R. D.C. 4
COMMENT TO OCTOBER 2017 AMENDMENTS
This rule incorporates the 2016 federal amendment to section (a). Section (a) now distinguishes between individual and organizational defendants by limiting the issuance of a warrant to individual defendants. The remaining 2016 amendments to the federal rule were rejected as inapplicable to the Superior Court because they addressed service of the summons outside of the United States and/or were inconsistent with D.C. Code §§ 23-562 and -563 (2012 Repl.).
COMMENT TO MARCH 2017 AMENDMENTS
This rule has been amended consistent with the 2011 amendments to the federal rule. Subsection (d)(4)(A) permits an arresting officer to show the arrestee either "the original or a duplicate original warrant." Subsection (d)(5)(A) permits an arresting officer to return the warrant by reliable electronic means. Finally, a new section (e) was added to refer to new Rule 4.1 (Complaint, Warrant, or Summons by Telephone or Other Reliable Electronic Means) and to permit warrants and summonses to be sought and approved by reliable electronic means.
COMMENT TO 2016 AMENDMENTS
This rule has been redrafted to conform to the general restyling of the federal rules in 2002. It differs from the federal rule in several respects.
Paragraph (a) takes into account the dictates of D.C. Code § 23-561(a)(2) (2012 Repl.) which states: "If a person fails to appear in response to a summons, a warrant shall issue for his arrest." It also retains the language of the former rule requiring approval by an appropriate prosecutor of any complaint before an arrest warrant issues, except where good cause is shown.
Paragraph (b) retains the language of the former rule regarding the use of hearsay to support probable cause. The language was removed from the federal rule as unnecessary, in part because this principle is addressed in Federal Rule of Evidence 1101. Because this jurisdiction has not adopted the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Superior Court rule did not follow this change.
Subparagraphs (c)(1)(E) and (F) retain the additional requirement of the former rule that the warrant contain the name of the court and the date of the issuance of the warrant to conform with the requirements of D.C. Code § 23-561(b)(1) (2012 Repl.).
Subparagraph (c)(2) differs from subparagraph (b)(2) of the federal rule by substituting "the court" for "Magistrate Judge."
Subparagraphs (d)(2) and (3) include territorial and time limits not found in the federal rule. See D.C. Code § 23-563(a) -(b) (2012 Repl.) (dealing with warrants or summons issued by the Superior Court); D.C. Code §§ 16-1022, -1024 (2012 Repl.) (defining the crime and punishment for parental kidnapping, which, although a felony, is punishable by a fine of not more than $1000 and/or imprisonment for not more than six months). The time limit in subparagraph (d)(3) is not intended to apply to bench warrants issued as to any offense.
Subparagraphs (d)(2) and (5) recognize the possibility of arrests on Superior Court warrants within or outside the District of Columbia. Accordingly, subparagraph (d)(5) provides for a return to the appropriate judge, magistrate judge, or other appropriate federal, state or local judicial officer.
Subparagraph (d)(4) is substantially identical to subparagraph (c)(3) of the federal rule, with changes in the manner of serving a summons to reflect D.C. Code § 23-562(a)(2) (2012 Repl.).
Subparagraph (d)(5) is substantially identical to subparagraph (c)(4) of the federal rule, with minor changes to reflect local practice.