The Creepy and Creeping Definition of a Bench Warrant

Recently, my daughter, a college student, was arrested for failure to appear in court to answer for a speeding ticket she got over a year ago.  Her sister posted bail or she would have spent time in jail.

Today, a Bench Warrant is a common order that a judge (or group of judges) issues to the police with the purpose of effecting a person's arrest.  The person to be arrested is then subject to forcible seizure and/or detention by the police.  Generally, a Bench Warrant is issued for contempt of the court by a judge on the testimony of a police officer.

Time has changed this definition—and for the worst.  In American history, a Bench Warrant might be issued for contempt--after one was indicted by a grand jury for a serious crime.  But a Bench Warrant would not be issued for contempt as affirmed only by a policeman or judge or individual for a mere infraction.  A Law Dictionary (A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States) published in 1856 by John Bouvier, defines Bench Warrant as follows:  “  A true bill is the result of an indictment by a grand jury convened to consider evidence and acting as a majority. 

If A Law Dictionary, was “Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States”, it is reasonable to inquire as to what today’s definition of a Bench Warrant is adapted?  Is today’s definition, for example, adapted to the Constitution of the United States?  Or, instead, may it be adapted to a particular judge’s or police officer’s caprices?  In other words, does today’s definition of a Bench Warrant sustain a rule of law?

The Constitution struck a balance between security and liberty.  The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States asserts that “No Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”  In other words, a warrant is required, supported by witness, and must describe the place to be searched and person or things to be seized.  It is interesting to note that the police officer who arrested my daughter did not present a warrant describing the place to be searched and persons or things to be seized.

Recognizing the threat that government posed to individual liberty, the Fifth Amendment augmented the protection of accused individuals.  Under the Fifth Amendment, a person cannot be arrested and tried for a serious crime unless a grand jury indicts the accused; and “No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”  It is self-evident that “due process of law” is something other than forcible seizure and/or detention on the order and/or testimony of one individual (ie. a policeman and/or a judge).

The creepy and creeping modern definition of a Bench Warrant reveals that the Constitutional balance between security and liberty has been revisited and revised by case law, by administrative law, and by legislators—to the detriment of the rule of law.  Government has erred in favor of security and against individual liberty.

I hope America re-enthrones the rule of law as defined by the Constitution of the United States before someone decides on a whim to arrest me for contempt in writing.