Part 2: oppose this bill modifying the power of magistrates to issue arrest warrants, here are several legal and case-based arguments you might consider: Legal and Constitutional Concerns - Due Process: The bill could be scrutinized under due process clauses (Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments), where immediate access to justice might be seen as a fundamental right, as implied in Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) regarding liberty interests. Misuse of Power - Checks and Balances: The potential for misuse of prosecutorial or law enforcement discretion might invoke the principles of checks and balances, a cornerstone of American government, as discussed in numerous cases, including Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952), where the Supreme Court invalidated an executive action for overstepping constitutional bounds. Thanks again Lis Fraser

Comments Document

Good afternoon. My name is Dave Briggman and I'm a citizen of Rockingham County. While it appears that this legislation may be pulled at the Patron's request, I wanted to speak in support of it. In 2017, I resigned from the employment by an Augusta County company after discovering the company was committing large numbers of state and federal crimes. That company was Nexus Services. Literally within hours, the owners, employees, and agents of the company began drawing legally baseless criminal charges against me which ranged from stealing four (4) paper towels while I was an employee to an allegation that I was able to pull a sealed court document out of OCRA and posting that document on the internet — which is technically impossible. From 2017 to 2022, 19 such warrants were obtained, including a large number from Stephen Poff, the Regional Magistrate overseeing much of Western Virginia, and all of which resulted in findings of either not guilty, but mostly were outright dismissed. FOUR MONTHS after the complaint I sent to the Director of Magistrate Services, I received a weak response from Jonathan Green, who decided he would take no action against any of the EIGHT Magistrates who issued these warrants to my former employer like candy, but declined to even entertain the issuance of process against the same folks. Clearly, Virginia's Magistrate system needs an overhaul, at least when it comes to Citizen-obtained criminal process. One of those who sought warrants against me lied to obtain the warrant and served 9 months for perjury. Not the fault of the Magistrate when they are lied to but this same Magistrate issued a number of other bogus criminal process against me. The Commonwealth Attorney in a pleading filed with the Court to nolle prosequi a number of the charges used phrases like "such behavior is insufficient to charge a crime", "plainly retaliatory", "fail to allege criminal conduct", "fails to allege a violation of a protective order", "appears retaliatory in nature", "fails to allege criminal behavior", and "clearly retaliatory". For these reasons, I would hope the Patron reconsiders pulling the legislation, or perhaps amending the legislation to permit issuance of such process, making it "live" only after the Commonwealth Attorney, their Deputy, or Assistants actually "sign off" on the warrants. This is the current state of the law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and would largely eliminate one's ability to "weaponize" the criminal justice system as my former employer has done to me. I have attached the weak response of Jonathan Green to the Complaint I filed with him...which took him four months to create. Dave Briggman Rockingham County

PART 1: I oppose this bill modifying the power of magistrates to issue arrest warrants, here are several legal and case-based arguments you might consider: Access to Justice and the Fourth Amendment: The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, including the issuance of warrants. By requiring law enforcement or prosecutorial approval for warrants based on citizen complaints, this bill could be seen as creating an unnecessary barrier to justice, potentially contravening the spirit of direct access to the courts as articulated in cases like Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), where the Supreme Court emphasized the right to legal recourse. Community Policing and Legal Precedents: Community involvement in policing is often encouraged as part of community-oriented policing strategies. The bill could undermine this approach, akin to the concerns raised in Miranda v. Arizona (1966) about the rights of individuals to interact with the legal system without unnecessary intermediaries. Moreover, this could be seen as conflicting with the ethos of Terry v. Ohio (1968), where the Supreme Court upheld the right of police to act on reasonable suspicion but also underscored the importance of community vigilance. Potential for Bias - Legal Implications: The discretion given to law enforcement or prosecutors could lead to selective enforcement, reminiscent of issues discussed in Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886), where the Supreme Court ruled against discriminatory law enforcement practices. Such a system might not only introduce bias but could also violate equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Bureaucratic Delays and Legal Efficiency: Introducing an additional layer of authorization echoes concerns about judicial efficiency seen in cases like Barker v. Wingo (1972), where the Supreme Court evaluated the right to a speedy trial. Delays in issuing warrants could impede the timely administration of justice, potentially compromising public safety or evidence preservation. Overburdening Law Enforcement - Resource Allocation: Much like the issues of resource allocation discussed in Brady v. Maryland (1963), where the Supreme Court ruled on the prosecution's duty to disclose evidence, this bill could stretch law enforcement resources thin, leading to inefficiencies similar to those criticized in criminal justice system analyses. Chilling Effect on Reporting - Legal Rights: This could parallel the chilling effect on free speech from New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), where the fear of litigation could deter citizens from exercising their rights. Here, the fear of inaction or retaliation might discourage crime reporting, potentially infringing on First Amendment rights to petition for redress of grievances. Excessive Control - Separation of Powers: This legislation might be viewed as an overreach into the judicial branch's role, challenging the separation of powers doctrine established by the U.S. Constitution and highlighted in cases like Marbury v. Madison (1803), where judicial independence was affirmed. Public Accountability - Legal Oversight: Reducing direct citizen access to magistrates might decrease accountability, similar to concerns addressed in United States v. Leon (1984) regarding the exclusionary rule and police accountability. This could lead to a less transparent judicial process. There is a second comment finishing my comment due to limited characters. Thanks Lisa Fraser