Got a Quick Question?

(120 characters remaining)
100% Anonymous. Free Answers.

Is a notice to appear the same as a warrant?

Is a "notice to appear" the same as "warrant"? Can police agencies collect blood sample(s) without a "warrant"?

Click here to get answers from a local criminal defense attorney
    Peter Goldscheider | Law Office of Peter F. Goldscheider
    438 Cambridge Ave. Suite 250
    Palo Alto, CA 94306
    (650) 323-8296
    No. A notice to appear merely informs you of a upcoming court date usually to initiate a case. I warrant also informs you a case has been initiated. The difference is with a warrant you can be arrested at any time by a police officer who becomes aware of the situation. You would do best contacting an experienced criminal law specialist if you are notified you have a warrant outstanding.
    Answer Applies to: California - Replied: 6/5/2014
    Steven Alpers | Steven Alpers
    39300 Civic Center Drive #110
    Fremont, CA 94538
    (510) 792-5110
    A notice to appear is like a traffic ticket. Police may be able to collect blood but it depends on the circumstances.
    Answer Applies to: California - Replied: 6/2/2014
    Jeff Yeh | Law Office of Jeff Yeh
    3810 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1110
    Los Angeles, CA 90010
    (213) 446-2495
    No. A warrant is issued when you fail to show up on the date on the notice to appear.
    Answer Applies to: California - Replied: 6/2/2014
    Ramona Hallam | Law Offices of Ramona Hallam
    P.O. Box 230411
    Encinitas, CA 92024
    (760) 212-9249
    Technically a notice to appear is a summons rather than a warrant. If a person fails to appear at the date/time noticed, then a warrant will issue. As for your second question, if a person is a 4th waiver (on probation or parole and having relinquished his/her 4th amendment rights in order to cut a deal), a warrant?may not be necessary as the person has already consented to a blood draw with the prior agreement. A regular citizen, however, has protections. In a 2013 case, the Supreme Court of the United States held in Missouri v. McNeely that where an officer cites "exigent" circumstances(as in an emergency where the evidence might be diluted by time.. alcohol, etc..)?that police usually have to get a search warrant before they can order blood tests for drunken-driving suspects. Prior to that time, police were allowed an exception for situations where there wasn't time to get a warrant because of an emergency. This was applied mainly in DUI cases. From 1966 to the present, they could force a blood test in a DUI case. The rule was an exception to the 4th Amendment warrant requirement for DUI-related blood tests. The High Court?s rationale was that officers could not spare the time to get a warrant because of how quickly alcohol leaves the bloodstream. The McNeely Court disagreed with the prior ruling, and held that in most drunk driving cases, there is enough time to get a warrant due to cell phones and email, etc. So now there isn't an automatic exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement for forced blood draws.? Emergency situations are now to be decided on a case-by-case? basis and later justified in court. Now the rule is that a warrant is necessary.??There are "civil" penalties by the DMV if you refuse... such as the loss of your license for a year.? If you are arrested or charged with a felony offense, however, Cal. Penal Code ? 296(2)(C) (as of January 1, 2009, requires the collection of a DNA sample; see also California Penal Code Section 296.1(a)(1) ("Collection from any adult person following arrest for [certain] felony offense[s]").?If you are charged with a registerable sex offense under Penal Code Section 290, or convicted of any felony crime, the police do not need a warrant to obtain DNA evidence from you. A recent decision from a California Appellate Court provided: [T]he legitimate governmental interests promoted by the warrantless collection of DNA samples, including buccal swab samples, from felony arrestees who are taken into custody upon probable cause, far outweigh the arrestees' privacy concerns. This case, People v. Lowe, involved a felony arrest for arson and is on review by the California Supreme Court.? The issue has not yet been resolved by the Court.
    Answer Applies to: California - Replied: 6/2/2014
Click to View More Answers:
Can't find the question you're looking for? Ask it?
Need personalized legal advice right now? Connect!

Disclaimer: The responses above do not form an attorney-client relationship. These answers may or may not apply to you and should not be relied upon as legal advice. Total Criminal Defense does not make any representation as to the expertise or qualifications of this attorney. These attorneys may or may not be admitted to state bar of your state.

Disclaimer: The information provided on this site is not legal advice, does not constitute a lawyer referral service, and no attorney-client or confidential relationship is or should be formed by use of the site. The attorney listings on the site are paid attorney advertisements. Your access of/to and use of this site is subject to additional Supplemental Terms.