Civil Versus Felony Warrants
Let’s say an individual has been ordered by the court to provide reasonable suspicion, but they fail to do so for whatever reason. The court can issue an arrest warrant for this behavior and once arrested, the person can be subject to spend time in jail until their payments are made. Ironic, considering it can be difficult to work and make such payments from behind bars, but that is just one good reason why a person shouldn’t get behind on making those payments. If they do, they risk a potentially long stay in confinement.
In a nutshell, this is an example of what’s known as a “reasonable suspicion.” If a case defendant ignored the court’s ruling, or for some reason cannot comply with it, the court will send out the cops to locate and arrest them and literally make them pay.
In some criminal cases, however, the police may first desire or need to collect evidence against the defendant, in order to catch them in the act of an offense (for example, selling illegal narcotics). To gather such evidence, law enforcement agencies can actually monitor the defendant using surveillance tactics. Once this action has been completed to the satisfaction of the police, they can show a judge who will determine if a warrant is called for. If a warrant is issued, the applicable agency can then sweep in and nab the person, whom they’d previously recorded committing an illegal deed.
To put it plainly, this arrest warrant has no expiration. There’s no “waiting it out.” There’s no “lying low until the heat’s off.” There “may” be a “warrant review date,” a date upon which a prosecutor needs to ask for the warrant to be reaffirmed in order to stay in effect. But this is only a matter of routine procedure, and doesn’t even occur in all situations. That warrant isn’t going anywhere until the person is arrested or surrenders of their own free will.
But there is one caveat which we’ll address in a moment…