How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Roger Your Own Question
Roger, Attorney
Category: Personal Injury Law
Satisfied Customers: 30898
Experience:  BV Rated by Martindale-Hubbell; SuperLawyer rating by Thompson-Reuters
Type Your Personal Injury Law Question Here...
Roger is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

when an arrest has occurred due to a warrant does the officer

This answer was rated:

when an arrest has occurred due to a warrant does the officer have to read the individual his rights or in that case he doesn't because of the warrant.
Hi. Thanks for requesting me!

No, a person doesn't have to be read his/her rights upon arrest. A person must only be read his/her rights IF law enforcement wants to question the suspect and use what is said against the person at trial.

So, there is no legal requirement to read a suspect his/her rights - but it doesn't really have anything to do with the warrant.
Customer: replied 3 years ago.

another question in the wherefore statement in your pleading if you forgot to add punitive damages can you amend the pleading to add it

Yes, you can file a motion to amend your complaint and ask the judge to allow you to make an amendment to add punitive damages as a claim against the other party. You will likely be required to attach the proposed amended complaint to your motion.

Courts are generally very liberal in allowing amendments, so you should be able to get that done.
Customer: replied 3 years ago.

so to get a clear understanding if there is a warrant the officer is permitted to arrest you without any reading of rights,however; can he question you on the warrant like do you remember the speeding ticket

Yes, that's right. A person can be arrested without being read his/her rights.

Also, the officer can question the a suspect, but anything that is said can't be used against the person.
Customer: replied 3 years ago.

so do i have to motion to seek the amendment of the pleading and it has to be granted or i give notice that i would like to amend and have the amended version attached

You would have to file a motion to amend and attach a copy of the amended complaint as an exhibit. Then, you have to serve the motion on the other parties and set it for hearing.

However, leave/permission to amend a complaint is generally given without much hassle. So, it should be something that can be done without a lot of trouble.
Customer: replied 3 years ago.

would you attach the whole complaint with the alterations or amendments or just the part that you amended the wherefore clause

The whole thing would need to be attached.
Customer: replied 3 years ago.

give me understanding on this i read this in Donohoe v. Burd, 722 F. Supp. 1507 - Dist. Court, SD Ohio 1989, "If a defendant maliciously caused process to issue without probable cause, the plaintiff will have a claim sounding of malicious prosecution". question is if a person knew that they were compensated fully for damages and they maliciously caused process would that still be considered probable cause due to the elements existing in the complaint? i.e. only existing in written complaint.

If new/additional damages were sought, then it wouldn''t likely be malicious prosecution. But, If damages for the exact same things were sought again, that could be considered malicious prosecution.
Customer: replied 3 years ago.

does the right to a speedy trial apply to a warrant or a warrant can last forever i.e. traffic warrants

Yes, the right to a speedy trial DOES apply once the warrant is served. Once the person has been arrested, he/she is entitled to a speedy trial.
Customer: replied 3 years ago.

yes i got confused i meant statute of limitations, it states that minor misdemeanors are 6 months for prosecutions so if a warrant is a year old for a minor misdemeanor you could motion to dismiss

No, you can't move to dismiss because the statute of limitations is satisfied if the charges are filed within the applicable time - - serving the warrant has nothing to do with the statute of limitations.

Once charges are timely filed, the warrant can be served any time.
Customer: replied 3 years ago.

but wouldn't the court have to prosecute within that allotted time if a year passed the court could still prosecute for a seatbelt ticket

If charges are timely filed, then the statute of limitations is satisfied. In that case, the person can be arrested on the warrant at any time in the future. The warrant lasts forever.

This is so in order to prevent someone from evading officials for a certain period of time and avoiding prosecution.

Customer: replied 3 years ago.

so why does the code stipulate a time frame, when you say charges do you mean indictment or information going in front of a grand jury and the warrant is issued if they say true bill , and this would be the same for seat belt tickets as well?

The statute of limitations is the time within which CHARGES have to be filed. With a traffic ticket, you are essentially charged when the ticket is handed to you/delivered to you. Thus, if the person fails to appear, a bench warrant is issued and it will remain outstanding until it is served.
Customer: replied 3 years ago.

even if the ticket was not signed? i read in a case law stating a ticket is a charging instrument it doesn't prove anything and the ticket states that this is not an admission to guilt

You're right that a ticket or charging instrument does not prove innocence or guilt. Instead, it just serves as notice that the person has been CHARGED with a crime/violation. However, the statute of limitation is satisfied with the ticket is issued.

A determination of guilt or innocence is determined by the judge when the matter gets to trial. However, the warrant was likely issued for failing to appear - - which would be a separate charge.

The ticket not being signed could be a defense to the charge and something that can be raised at trial - - but that doesn't void the ticket in and of itself.
Customer: replied 3 years ago.

How can the ticket have merit when there is no signature and is over a year old?


How can that person be held liable without even having notification of such a thing (ticket)?

The ticket may not have any merit, but that's something the JUDGE will have to decide. It can't be assumed or determined by the prosecutor or a party that the ticket is invalid.
Customer: replied 3 years ago.

Then whats the point in having a signature line if that person isnt REQUIRED to sign it for validation?


Wouldn't that be ministerial of the judge and not discretional?


What do you mean by " It can't be assumed or determined by the prosecutor or a party that the ticket is invalid." ?

The signature is required to validate the ticket, true enough. But if the ticket is unsigned, the recipient can't just throw it in the trash. Instead, you would have to go to court and object to the ticket's validity and ask the court to throw it out and dismiss the case due to this issue - it should not be discretionary; if the ticket is unsigned, then the judge should throw it out.

However, only the judge can make that call. No one else can dismiss the ticket - even if its void.
Customer: replied 3 years ago.

good enough teach, tonight! we feast, tomorrow we launch our defenses and attack, lol

Ha! Glad to help. Let me know if you need something else.
Customer: replied 3 years ago.

do you know of any case law that state the signature validates the ticket

Yes, Ohio Traffic Rule 3(e) requires the ticket to be signed. Here's a link to the rule:
Customer: replied 3 years ago.

the officer must sign it not the one receiving the ticket?

Customer: replied 3 years ago.

so it would still be valid if the offender signature is not on it and if he doesnt recall getting the ticket

If the officer testifies that he/she gave the ticket to the offender, it would likely stand even if the ticket is not signed.
Customer: replied 3 years ago.

So, its a matter of their word against yours?



That's right; and the judge is usually going to side with the officer.
Customer: replied 3 years ago.

in a situation like that would it be good to have a trial buy jury or its still a gamble?

It's still a gamble, but you would likely find someone less trusting of a cop than the judge would be - - so it likely isn't any worse of an option.
Roger and 4 other Personal Injury Law Specialists are ready to help you

Related Personal Injury Law Questions