Also known as: police magistrates · magistrate
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A local judicial officer with strictly limited jurisdiction who presides over minor criminal offenses, preliminary hearings, and the issuance of warrants.
Officers obtained a search warrant from police magistrate Pedro Pacheco for a suspected fraud scheme at Pioneer Energy. The warrant later lacked probable cause, but the officers relied on it in good faith. Evidence seized under the warrant was admitted at trial because the magistrate had acted as a neutral judicial officer.
Patrick Phan, a federal agent, called police magistrate Penelope Price to seek an arrest warrant by telephone. The magistrate placed the agent under oath, heard the facts, and issued the warrant electronically. The procedure allowed consideration of reliable electronic information when deciding whether to issue a warrant.
In a civil coverage dispute, the district court referred pretrial matters to police magistrate Pablo Perez. Counsel made detailed factual statements during a telephone status conference before the magistrate. The evidence rules applied because the conference occurred before a judicial officer in a United States district court proceeding.
Police arrested Pavel Petrov in the district where the offense occurred. No magistrate judge was immediately available, so officers brought him before police magistrate Portia Price, a state judicial officer. The initial appearance satisfied the rule permitting presentment before a local judicial officer when a magistrate judge is not reasonably available.
A police magistrate denied a motion to suppress evidence in a criminal case. The defendant later sued the magistrate for damages. The magistrate received qualified immunity because the actions were taken in a judicial capacity and did not violate clearly established law.
In 1968, Ernest Fitzgerald, a management analyst with the Department of the Air Force, testified before the Subcommittee on Economy in Government of the Joint Economic Committee of the Congress that a new transport plane, the C-5A, was substantially over its projected cost. This testimony apparently embarrassed the Department of Defense and the Air Force. Shortly thereafter, Fitzgerald's job was abolished in a reorganization of the Air Force. Fitzgerald brought suit against a number of officials of the Executive Branch, including petitioners Bryce Harlow and Alexander Butterfield. Fitzgerald alleged that Harlow and Butterfield had participated in a conspiracy to violate his constitutional and statutory rights by arranging to have him dismissed from his position in the Air Force in retaliation for his testimony. As evidence of Harlow's involvement, Fitzgerald relied on a series of conversations in which Harlow discussed Fitzgerald's dismissal with Air Force Secretary Robert Seamans. He also relied on a recorded conversation in which the President later voiced a tentative recollection that Harlow was "all for canning" Fitzgerald. As evidence against Butterfield, Fitzgerald cited a May 1969 White House memorandum. In it Butterfield claimed to have learned that Fitzgerald planned to "blow the whistle" on some "shoddy purchasing practices" by exposing these practices to public view. Fitzgerald also cited communications between Butterfield and Haldeman in December 1969 and January 1970 as evidence that Butterfield participated in the conspiracy to conceal his unlawful discharge and prevent his reemployment. Harlow asserted that Secretary Seamans had advised him that considerations of efficiency required Fitzgerald's removal by a reduction in force. Harlow had no reason to believe that a conspiracy existed. Butterfield stated that he was not involved in any decision concerning Fitzgerald's employment status until more than a month after the termination had been scheduled and announced publicly. Butterfield never communicated his views about Fitzgerald to any official of the Defense Department. The District Court denied the motions of Harlow and Butterfield for summary judgment based on absolute Presidential immunity or, alternatively, qualified immunity. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed in part and remanded. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
City inspectors sought to enter a residence without a warrant to check housing code compliance. The resident refused entry. Police magistrate Phoenix Technologies, acting as a neutral judicial officer, issued a warrant after finding probable cause, satisfying the constitutional requirement for a magistrate's determination before an administrative search.
Roland Camara, lessee of the ground floor of an apartment building in San Francisco, faced criminal charges under the city's Housing Code for refusing to allow municipal inspectors to enter his residence without a search warrant. On November 6, 1963, an inspector from the Division of Housing Inspection of the San Francisco Department of Public Health entered the building to conduct a routine annual inspection for possible code violations. The building manager told the inspector that Camara was using the rear of his leasehold as a personal residence, which the occupancy permit did not authorize. The inspector confronted Camara and demanded entry to inspect the premises, but Camara refused because the inspector lacked a warrant. The inspector returned on November 8 without a warrant, and Camara again denied access. A citation was then mailed ordering Camara to appear at the district attorney's office. When he failed to appear, two inspectors returned on November 22 and informed him that Section 503 of the Housing Code required him to permit entry at reasonable times upon presentation of proper credentials. Camara still refused without a warrant. A complaint was filed charging him with violating Section 507 by refusing to permit a lawful inspection. He was arrested on December 2 and released on bail. Camara's demurrer to the criminal complaint was denied in the municipal court. He then filed a petition for a writ of prohibition in California Superior Court, alleging that the ordinance authorizing the warrantless inspection was unconstitutional on its face. The Superior Court denied the writ. The District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial, and the Supreme Court of California denied a petition for hearing. Camara had properly raised and obtained consideration of the federal constitutional questions in the state courts. The inspection program operated under Section 86(3) of the San Francisco Municipal Code, which required apartment house operators to pay an annual license fee that partly defrayed the cost of periodic inspections. The Bureau of Housing Inspection conducted these inspections at least once a year and as often thereafter as deemed necessary. The permit of occupancy for the building was not issued until the license was obtained.
A police magistrate reviews complaints and supporting affidavits to determine whether probable cause exists before issuing an arrest warrant. The magistrate must make an independent judgment based on facts rather than conclusory statements. This ensures the warrant satisfies Fourth Amendment requirements.
A police magistrate may use telephone or other reliable electronic means to review a complaint and decide whether to issue a warrant or conduct an initial appearance. The magistrate must place the applicant under oath and may examine the applicant and any witnesses. This procedure is authorized when a physical appearance is impractical.
…most confessions obtained through police interrogation. In India, confessions made to police not in the presence of a magistrate have been excluded by rule of evidence since 1872, at a time when it operated under British law. Identical provisions appear in the Evidence Ordinance of Ceylon, enacted in…
…can invade the home to enforce it, provided, of course, that they obtain a determination of probable cause from a neutral magistrate. One of the reasons for the Court's holding in Griswold v. Connecticut , 381 U. S. 479 (1965), was precisely the possibility, and repugnance, of permitting searches to obtain evidence…
…the fullest toleration in the exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience, unpunished and unrestrained by the magistrate, unless, under colour of religion, any man disturb the peace, the happiness, or safety of society. And that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and…
…7604 (a) in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan. That court adopted the recommendation of a Magistrate who concluded that the summons should be enforced. Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit which rejected the
…Alaska : Constitution, Art. I, § 11; Alaska Stat. §§ 11.75.030 (1962), 22.15.060, 22.15.150 (1967). (Jury of six in district magistrate’s courts, which have jurisdiction of misdemeanors, punishable by up to one year’s imprisonment.) 2. Georgia : Constitution, Art. I, § 2-105, Art. VI, §2-5101; Ga. Code Ann. §27-2506…
The Federal Rules of Evidence apply to proceedings before United States magistrate judges, including police magistrates acting in that capacity. The rules govern both civil and criminal matters and contempt proceedings that are not summary. This ensures consistent evidentiary standards across federal judicial officers.
The initial appearance may be held before a state or local judicial officer such as a police magistrate when a magistrate judge is not reasonably available. The appearance must still occur in the district of arrest. This rule prevents unnecessary delay while preserving judicial oversight.
A police magistrate receives qualified immunity for actions taken in a judicial capacity unless the conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. Immunity protects the magistrate from personal liability when performing core judicial functions. This defense applies even if the decision is later reversed.