|
|
|
|
|
|
by swashboon
755 days ago
|
|
|
This is more akin to empaneling a grand-jury in the USA - it is driven by the prosecutors office and is the first step before review to see if adequate evidence exists to justify a "real" warrant that would lead to arrests. If they get a warrant - its just like a warrant in the USA, maybe the cops bother looking for you i.e. go to your house / work / last known address but more often they just wait until you get a traffic ticket or something where you happen to interact with them. If you had a warrant from another state, the local cops would need a pretty good reason to bother actually looking for you. |
|
|
Often goes slightly further than this. The state issuing the warrant must pay “transport fees” to the state doing the arresting. The arresting state calls the warrant state to see if their transport fees will be authorized. Most of the time, those fees are not authorized by the issuing state. So the suspect is let go, if the police interaction wasn’t otherwise justified in an arrest.
The reasons for why transport fees are generally declined vary, but I’d imagine that as long as the suspect stays out of the issuing state, they can’t commit more crime in that state, so the outstanding warrant is itself an effective deterrent against crime in the issuing state…the suspect generally will avoid returning. Also jails/prisons are overcrowded, dockets are overflowing, etc.
But generally any police interaction which shows a valid warrant in another state, the “local police” will by default attempt an arrest. It’s not “unimportant” to them. Just they can’t do anything with the suspect if they arrest them without approved transport fees so there’s simply no point in completing the arrest.
I learned all this just last week by picking up a homeless fugitive hitchiking along the interstate. But he’d had enough interactions with police in various states and seemed otherwise intelligent enough to be a reliable narrator on the matter.