Minn. R. Crim. P. 3.04

As amended through October 28, 2024

Rule 3.04 - Defective Warrant, Summons or Complaint

Subd. 1.Amendment. A person arrested under a warrant or appearing in response to a summons must not be discharged from custody or dismissed because of any defect in form in the warrant or summons if the warrant or summons is amended to remedy the defect.

Subd. 2.Issuance of New Complaint, Warrant or Summons. Pre-trial proceedings may be continued to permit a new complaint to be filed and a new warrant or summons issued if the prosecutor promptly moves for a continuance on the ground that:

(a) the initial complaint does not properly name or describe the defendant or the offense charged; or

(b) the evidence presented establishes probable cause to believe that the defendant has committed a different offense from that charged in the complaint, and the prosecutor intends to charge the defendant with that offense.

If the proceedings are continued, the new complaint must be filed and process promptly issued. In misdemeanor cases, if the defendant during the continuance is unable to post bail that might be required under Rule 6.02, subd. 1, then the defendant must be released subject to such non-monetary conditions as the court deems necessary under that Rule.

Subd. 3.Procedure upon Issuance of New Complaint. Upon the issuance of a new complaint, the court must inform the defendant of the charges; the defendant's rights, including the right to have counsel appointed if eligible; and the opportunity to enter a plea as permitted by Rules 5.06, 5.07, and 5.08. The court must also review conditions of release under Rule 6.02, subd. 2. Pretrial proceedings, including any prior waiver of rights, must be reopened to the extent required by the new complaint.

Minn. R. Crim. P. 3.04

Amended effective 11/1/2014.

Comment-Rule 3

Rule 3.01 does not define probable cause for the purpose of obtaining a warrant of arrest or to prescribe the evidence that may be considered on that issue. These issues are determined by federal Fourth Amendment constitutional law. See e.g., State ex rel. Duhn v. Tahash, 275 Minn. 377, 147 N.W.2d 382 (1966); State v. Burch, 284 Minn. 300, 170 N.W.2d 543 (1969).

See Rule 4.02, subd. 5(3) for restrictions on the issuance of a warrant for an offense for which the prosecution has obtained a valid complaint after the time in which the court had ordered the complaint to be prepared.

Issuance of a warrant instead of a summons should not be grounds for objection to the arrest, to the jurisdiction of the court, or to any subsequent proceedings. In overcoming the presumption for issuing a summons rather than a warrant, the prosecutor may, among other factors, cite to the nature and circumstances of the particular case, the past history of response to legal process and the defendant's criminal record. The remedy of a defendant who has been arrested by warrant is to request the imposition of conditions of release under Rule 6.02, subd. 1 upon the initial court appearance.

Minnesota law requires that the defendant be taken before the court "without unreasonable delay." See, e.g., Stromberg v. Hansen, 177 Minn. 307, 225 N.W. 148 (1929). See also Minn. Stat. § 629.401. Rule 3.02, subd. 2 imposes more definite time limitations while permitting a degree of flexibility. The first limitation (Rule 3.02, subd. 2) is that the defendant must be brought directly before the court if it is in session. The second limitation (Rule 3.02, subd. 2) is that if the court is not in session, the defendant must be taken before the nearest available judge of the issuing court without unnecessary delay, but not more than 36 hours after the arrest or as soon after the 36-hour period as a judge of the issuing court is available.

In computing the 36-hour time limit in Rule 3.02, subd. 2, the day of arrest is not counted. The 36 hours begin to run at midnight following the arrest. Also, Rule 34.01 expressly does not apply to Rule 3.02, subd. 2. Saturdays are to be counted in computing the 36-hour time limit under this rule. See also Rule 4.02, subd. 5.

The provisions of Rule 3.03, subd. 2 that a warrant may be executed or a summons served at any place within the State is in accord with existing law governing service of criminal process. The phrase "except where prohibited by law" was added to exclude those places, such as federal reservations, where state service of process may be prohibited by law.

For service of summons on corporations, Rule 3.03, subd. 3 adopts the method prescribed by law for service of process in civil actions. See Minn.R.Civ.P. 4.03(c).