Pursuant to article 113 (b) (5) of the revised Code of Criminal Procedure, a person may be arrested without a warrant if an offence has just been committed and the arresting person has reason to believe that the arresting person knowingly committed the offence on the basis of personal knowledge of the facts or circumstances. This is also known as arrest for persecution on the spot. “The hot persecution must not last more than 48 hours,” he said in a telephone interview. Among the cases where an arrest was invalidated for hot persecution, there was one in which, based on the alleged identification of witnesses, an attempt was made to arrest two suspects three days after the crime was committed. These facts may not be used to say that the officers have personal knowledge of the facts or circumstances under which the persons to be arrested committed the offence. The Supreme Court enacted the rule of hot persecution in 1967 in Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 87 S. Ct. 1642, 18 L. Ed. 2d 782.
It had used that term before, but in Warden it expressly tolerated some form of warrantless search. In this case, police pursuing an alleged armed robber were informed that he had entered an apartment shortly before their arrival. They entered the house, searched it, confiscated evidence, and then arrested the suspect in his bed. The man argued in court that searching the premises without a warrant violated his Fourth Amendment rights. When the case went to the Supreme Court, he disagreed and justified the search in urgent circumstances. (Even if the pursuit lasts two months for the suspect, it is still considered a hot chase as long as the investigation is ongoing) Cabal said in an interview. n. if a law enforcement officer is so close to the alleged criminal that he or she can pursue the prosecution in another jurisdiction without arresting or seeking a warrant in the other county or state. It is synonymous with a new quest. (See: New Persecution) 1) A prior effective intrusion on the basis of a valid arrest without a judicial order, in which the police are lawfully present in the performance of their official duties. For an arrest of the hot persecution to be considered valid, Odron said there must be a “high degree of immediacy” between the time of the crime and the time the suspect is taken into custody. In the third form of arrest without a court order, in addition to flagrante delicto and hot persecution, a person may be detained without warrant if he or she is a detainee who has escaped or is temporarily detained from a penal institution or place where he or she is serving a final sentence while his or her case is pending or has escaped.
while she was being transferred from one detention to another. “I understand that our law enforcement officers arrested Jordan Gera without a warrant through the persecution theory,” he said in a text message to the Cebu Daily News. The fact that a crime was actually committed does not automatically place the case under the status of “hot persecution” arrests. There must be “probable cause” and “immediacy” within the time after the offence is committed. Hot effort is one of those urgent circumstances. It usually applies when police pursue an alleged offender in private places or have probable reason to believe that a crime has been committed in private places. The Supreme Court has stated that “prosecution is a kind of prosecution, but need not be a prolonged cry `in and through public streets`” (United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38, 96 pp. Ct.
2406, 49 L. Ed. 2d 300 [1976]). Hot persecution also applies when the lives of police officers or others are in danger. Thus, the Court recognized two specific conditions justifying warrantless searches under the hot charge rule: the need to circumvent the destruction of evidence and the need to prevent loss of life or serious injury. Since Warden, lower courts have used the rule to determine whether police officers acted reasonably or inappropriately when conducting a search without obtaining a search warrant. Other cases have allowed entry and arrest without warrant in different circumstances: when police saw a suspect standing at his door who withdrew with a package containing marked money from a stabbing attack (United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38, 96 pp. Ct.
2406, 49 L. Ed. 2d 300 [1976]); whether the police had a probable reason to arrest a suspect because he fit the description of an assailant who threatened others and fled (United States v. Lopez, 989 F.2d 24 (1st Cir. 1993), Cert. Denied, 510 U.S. 872, 114 pp. Ct. 201, 126 L.
Ed. 2d 158 [1993]); and when a police officer saw drug trafficking taking place inside the doorstep of an apartment (United States v. Sewell, 942 F.2d 1209 [7th Cir. 1991]). To distinguish it from arrest in flagrante delicto, law enforcement does not have to personally witness the commission of a crime. However, you must have personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances that indicate that the person to be arrested committed them (Sapi v. People, G.R. No. 200370, June 7, 2017).
In the case of an arrest for the prosecution, the decisive factor in the element of “personal knowledge of the facts or circumstances” is the necessary element of the immediacy in which those facts or circumstances are to be collected. This element of time required serves as a protective measure to ensure that police officers have gathered the facts or become aware of the circumstances within a very limited period of time.
