CHAPTER 5. PRETRIAL PROCEDURES IN COURT CASES

Rule 500. Preservation of Testimony After Institution of Criminal Proceedings.

 (A)  BY COURT ORDER.

   (1)  At any time after the institution of a criminal proceedings, upon motion of any party, and after notice and hearing, the court may order the taking and preserving of the testimony of any witness who may be unavailable for trial or for any other proceeding, or when due to exceptional circumstances, it is in the interests of justice that the witness’ testimony be preserved.

   (2)  The court shall state on the record the grounds on which the order is based.

   (3)  The court’s order shall specify the time and place for the taking of the testimony, the manner in which the testimony shall be recorded and preserved, and the procedures for custody of the recorded testimony.

   (4)  The testimony shall be taken in the presence of the court, the attorney for the Commonwealth, the defendant(s), and defense counsel, unless otherwise ordered.

   (5)  The preserved testimony shall not be filed of record until it is offered into evidence at trial or other judicial proceeding.

 (B)  BY AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES.

   (1) At any time after the institution of a criminal proceeding, the testimony of any witness may be taken and preserved upon the express written agreement of the attorney for the Commonwealth, the defendant(s), and defense counsel.

   (2)  The agreement shall specify the time and place for taking the testimony, the manner in which the testimony shall be recorded and preserved, and the procedures for custody of the recorded testimony.

   (3)  The testimony shall be taken in the presence of the attorney for the Commonwealth, the defendant(s), and defense counsel, unless they otherwise agree.

   (4)  The agreement shall be filed of record.

   (5)  The preserved testimony shall not be filed of record until it is offered into evidence at trial or other judicial proceeding.

   This rule is intended to provide the means by which testimony may be preserved for use at a subsequent stage in the criminal proceedings. When testimony is to be preserved by videotape recording, see also Rule 501.

   This rule does not address the admissibility of the preserved testimony. All questions of admissibility must be decided by the court. See, e.g., Judicial Code §  5917, 42 Pa.C.S. §  5917 (1982); Commonwealth v. Scarborough, 421 A.2d 147 (Pa. 1980); Commonwealth v. Stasko, 370 A.2d 350 (Pa. 1977).

   ‘‘May be unavailable,’’ as used in paragraph (A), is intended to include situations in which the court has reason to believe that the witness will be unable to be present or to testify at trial or other proceedings, such as when the witness is dying, or will be out of the jurisdiction and therefore cannot be effectively served with a subpoena, or may become incompetent to testify for any legally sufficient reason.

   Under paragraph (A)(4), a judge should preside over the taking of testimony. The court, however, may order that testimony be taken and preserved without a judge’s presence when exigent circumstances exist or the location of the witness renders a judge’s presence impracticable. Furthermore, nothing in this rule is intended to preclude counsel, the defendant(s), and the judge from agreeing on the record that the judge need not be present. Paragraph (B)(3) permits the attorney for the Commonwealth, the defendant(s), and defense counsel to determine among themselves whether a judge should be present during the taking of testimony. That determination should be made a part of the written agreement required by paragraph (B)(1).

   Nothing is this rule is intended to preclude the defendant from waiving his or her presence during the taking of testimony.

   The means by which the testimony is recorded and preserved are within the discretion of the court under paragraph (A) and the parties under paragraph (B), and may include the use of electronic or photographic techniques such as videotape. There are, however, additional procedural requirements for preservation of testimony by videotape recording mandated by Rule 501.

   The party on whose motion testimony is taken should normally have custody of and be responsible for safeguarding the preserved testimony. That party should also promptly provide a copy of the preserved testimony to any other party upon payment of reasonable costs.

   When testimony is taken under this rule, the proceeding should be adversarial, and afford the parties full opportunity to examine and cross-examine the witness. Counsel should not reserve objections for time of trial.

   Paragraphs (A)(5) and (B)(5) are intended to guard against pretrial disclosure of potentially prejudicial matters.

   For definition of ‘‘court,’’ see Rule 103.

   Official Note

   Rule 9015 adopted November 8, 1982, effective January 1, 1983; amended March 22, 1989, effective July 1, 1989; renumbered Rule 500 and amended March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001.

   Committee Explanatory Reports:

 (A)  When the testimony of a witness is taken and preserved pursuant to Rule 500 by means of videotape recording, the testimony shall be recorded simultaneously by a stenographer.

 (B)  The following technical requirements shall be made part of the court order required by Rule 500(A) or the written agreement provided in Rule 500(B):

   (1)  The videotape recording shall begin with a statement on camera that includes:

     (a)   the operator’s name and business address;

     (b)   the name and address of the operator’s employer;

     (c)   the date, time, and place of the videotape recording;

     (d)   the caption of the case;

     (e)   the name of the witness;

     (f)   the party on whose behalf the witness is testifying; and

     (g)   the nature of the judicial proceedings for which the testimony is intended.

   (2)  The court and all parties shall identify themselves on camera.

   (3)  The witness shall be sworn on camera.

   (4)  If the length of the testimony requires the use of more than one videotape, the end of each videotape and the beginning of each succeeding videotape shall be announced on camera.

   (5)  At the conclusion of the witness’ testimony, a statement shall be made on camera that the testimony is concluded. A statement shall also be made concerning the custody of the videotape(s).

   (6)  Statements concerning stipulations, exhibits, or other pertinent matters may be made at any time on camera.

   (7)  The videotape recording shall be timed by a digital clock on camera that continually shows the hour, minute, and second of the testimony.

   (8)  All objections and the reasons for them shall be made on the record. When a judge presides over the videotaping of testimony, the judge’s rulings on objections shall also be made on the record.

   (9)  When a judge does not preside over the videotaping of testimony, the videotape operator shall keep a log of each objection, referenced to the time each objection is made. All rulings on objections shall be made before the videotape is shown at any judicial proceeding.

   (10)  The original videotape recording shall not be altered.

   This rule provides the basic technical requirements for taking and preserving testimony by videotape recording under Rule 500. The list of requirements is not intended to be exhaustive. Rather, it is recommended that all recording by videotape be carefully planned and executed, and that in addition to complying with the basic requirement, each court order or written agreement for the videotape recording of testimony be tailored to the nature of the case and the needs of the parties.

   Generally, the camera should focus on the witness to the extent practicable.

   Under paragraph (B)(9), the court may rule on objections by either reviewing pertinent sections of the videotape recording, aided by the videotape operator’s log, or by reviewing the stenographic transcript required by paragraph (A).

   Any editing procedure ordered by the court or agreed upon by the parties may be used as long as it comports with current technology and does not alter the original videotape recording. Paragraph (B)(10) is intended to insure preservation of the original videotape, thereby providing for those situations in which a dispute arises over editing procedures.

   This rule authorizes the use of videotape recording devices only for the preservation of testimony under Rule 500. It is not intended to affect other rules governing recording devices. See, e.g., Rules 112 and 500.

   Official Note

   Rule 9015A adopted March 22, 1989, effective July 1, 1989; renumbered Rule 501 and amended March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001.

   Committee Explanatory Reports:

   Final Report explaining the March 1, 2000 reorganization and renumbering of the rules published with the Court’s Order at 30 Pa.B. 1478 (March 18, 2000).

PART B. Instituting Proceedings

Rule 502. Instituting Proceedings in Court Cases.

 Criminal proceedings in court cases shall be instituted by:

   (1)  filing a written complaint; or

   (2)  an arrest without a warrant:

     (a)   when the offense is a felony or misdemeanor committed in the presence of the police officer making the arrest; or

     (b)   upon probable cause when the offense is a felony or murder; or

     (c)   upon probable cause when the offense is a misdemeanor not committed in the presence of the police officer making the arrest, when such arrest without a warrant is specifically authorized by statute.

   Criminal proceedings in court cases are instituted by 1) the filing of a complaint, followed by the issuance of a summons or arrest warrant; or by 2) a warrantless arrest, followed by the filing of a complaint. For the definition of ‘‘court case,’’ see Rule 103.

   If the defendant is held for court, the attorney for the Commonwealth submits an information to the court (see Rule 225). See Section 8931(d) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. §  8931(d).

   There are only a few exceptions to this rule regarding the instituting of criminal proceedings in court cases. There are, for example, special proceedings involving a coroner or medical examiner. See Commonwealth v. Lopinson, 427 Pa. 552, 234 A.2d 552 (1967), and Commonwealth v. Smouse, 406 Pa. Super. 369, 594 A.2d 666 (1991).

   Whenever a misdemeanor, felony, or murder is charged, even if the summary offense is also charged in the same complaint, the case should proceed as a court case under Chapter 5. See Commonwealth v. Caufman, 541 Pa. 299, 662 A.2d 1050 (1995), and Commonwealth v. Campana, 455 Pa. 622, 304 A.2d 432 (1973), vacated and remanded, 414 U.S. 808 (1973), on remand, 454 Pa. 233, 314 A.2d 854 (1974). In judicial districts in which there is a traffic court established pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § §  1301—1342, when a summary motor vehicle offense within the jurisdiction of the traffic court arises in the same criminal episode as another summary offense or a misdemeanor, felony, or murder offense, see 42 Pa.C.S. §  1302 and Commonwealth v. Masterson, 275 Pa. Super. 166, 418 A.2d 664 (1980).

   Paragraph (2)(c) is intended to acknowledge those specific instances wherein the General Assembly has provided by statute for arrest without a warrant for a misdemeanor not committed in the presence of the arresting officer. It in no way attempts to modify the law of arrest where no specific statutory provision applies.

   For institution of criminal proceedings in summary cases, see Rule 400.

   Official Note

   Original Rule 102(1), (2), and (3), adopted June 30, 1964, effective January 1, 1965; suspended January 31, 1970, effective May 1, 1970. New Rule 102 adopted January 31, 1970, effective May 1, 1970; renumbered Rule 101, and made applicable to court cases only, September 18, 1973, effective January 1, 1974; Comment revised February 15, 1974, effective immediately; amended June 30, 1975, effective September 1, 1975; Comment amended January 4, 1979, effective January 9, 1979; paragraph (1) amended October 22, 1981, effective January 1, 1982; Comment revised July 12, 1985, effective January 1, 1986; January 1, 1986 effective date extended to July 1, 1986; Comment revised January 31, 1991, effective July 1, 1991; Comment revised August 12, 1993, effective September 1, 1993; amended August 9, 1994, effective January 1, 1995; Comment revised January 16, 1996, effective immediately; renumbered Rule 502 and amended March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001; amended March 9, 2006, effective September 1, 2006.

   Committee Explanatory Reports:

   Report explaining the January 31, 1991 amendments published at 20 Pa.B. 4788 (September 15, 1990); Supplemental Report published at 21 Pa.B. 621 (February 16, 1991).

   Report explaining the August 12, 1993 Comment revisions published at 22 Pa.B. 3826 (July 25, 1992).

   Report explaining the August 9, 1994 amendments published at 22 Pa.B. 6 (January 4, 1993); Final Report published with the Court’s Order at 24 Pa.B. 4342 (August 27, 1994).

   Report explaining the January 16, 1996 Comment revisions published with the Court’s Order at 26 Pa.B. 437 (February 3, 1996).

   Final Report explaining the March 1, 2000 reorganization and renumbering of the rules published with the Court’s Order at 30 Pa.B. 1478 (March 18, 2000).

   Final Report explaining the March 3, 2006 changes to the third paragraph of the Comment published with the Court’s Order at 36 Pa.B. 1392 (March 25, 2006).

   The provisions of the Rule 502 amended March 9, 2006, effective September 1, 2006, 36 Pa.B. 1385. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (264223) to (264224).

PART B(1). Complaint Procedures

Rule 503. Complaint Procedure Generally.

 In every court case a complaint shall be filed with the appropriate issuing authority.

   Except in those cases where a warrantless arrest is made pursuant to Rules 502 and 518, the filing of a complaint institutes proceedings in a court case, followed by the issuance of a summons or arrest warrant. When a defendant is arrested without a warrant, it is the arrest itself which institutes proceedings, followed by the filing of a complaint.

   For the filing of a complaint in summary cases, see Chapter 4, Part C, Procedures in Summary Cases When Complaint is Filed. See also Rule 504(6)(b) concerning the contents of a complaint in summary cases.

   Official Note

   Rule 103 adopted August 9, 1994, effective January 1, 1995; renumbered Rule 503 and Comment revised March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001.

   Committee Explanatory Reports:

   Report explaining the provisions of the new rule published at 22 Pa.B. 6 (January 4, 1992); Final Report published with the Court’s Order at 24 Pa.B. 4342 (August 27, 1994).

 Every complaint shall contain:

   (1)  the name of the affiant;

   (2)  the name and address of the defendant, or if unknown, a description of the defendant as nearly as may be;

   (3)  a direct accusation to the best of the affiant’s knowledge, or information and belief, that the defendant violated the penal laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania;

   (4)  the date when the offense is alleged to have been committed; provided, however:

     (a)   if the specific date is unknown, or if the offense is a continuing one, it shall be sufficient to state that it was committed on or about any date within the period of limitations; and

     (b)   if the date or day of the week is an essential element of the offense charged, such date or day must be specifically set forth;

   (5)  the place where the offense is alleged to have been committed;

   (6) (a)  in a court case, a summary of the facts sufficient to advise the defendant of the nature of the offense charged, but neither the evidence nor the statute allegedly violated need be cited in the complaint. However, a citation of the statute allegedly violated, by itself, shall not be sufficient for compliance with this subsection; or

     (b)   in a summary case, a citation of the specific section and subsection of the statute or ordinance allegedly violated, together with a summary of the facts sufficient to advise the defendant of the nature of the offense charged;

   (7)  a statement that the acts of the defendant were against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania or in violation of an ordinance of a political subdivision;

   (8)  a notation if criminal laboratory services are requested in the case;

   (9)  a request for the issuance of a warrant of arrest or a summons, unless an arrest has already been effected;

   (10)  a verification by the affiant that the facts set forth in the complaint are true and correct to the affiant’s personal knowledge, or information and belief, and that any false statements therein are made subject to the penalties of the Crimes Code, 18 Pa.C.S. §  4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities; and

   (11)  the signature of the affiant and the date of the execution of the complaint.

   This rule sets forth the required contents of all complaints whether the affiant is a law enforcement officer, a police officer, or a private citizen. When the affiant is a private citizen, the complaint must be submitted to an attorney for the Commonwealth for approval. See Rule 506. When the district attorney elects to proceed under Rule 507 (Approval of Police Complaints and Arrest Warrant Affidavits by Attorney for the Commonwealth), the police officer must likewise submit the complaint for approval by an attorney for the Commonwealth.

   Ordinarily, whenever a misdemeanor, felony, or murder is charged, any summary offense in such a case, if known at the time, should be charged in the same complaint, and the case should proceed as a court case under Chapter 5 Part B. See Commonwealth v. Caufman, 541 Pa. 299, 662 A.2d 1050 (1995) and Commonwealth v. Campana, 455 Pa. 622, 304 A.2d 432 (Pa. 1973), vacated and remanded, 414 U.S. 808 (1973), on remand, 454 Pa. 233, 314 A.2d 854 (1974) (compulsory joinder rule). In judicial districts in which there is a traffic court established pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § §  1301—1342, when a summary motor vehicle offense within the jurisdiction of the traffic court arises in the same criminal episode as another summary offense or a misdemeanor, felony, or murder offense, see 42 Pa.C.S. §  1302 and Commonwealth v. Masterson, 275 Pa. Super. 166, 418 A.2d 664 (1980).

   Paragraph (8) requires the affiant who prepares the complaint to indicate on the complaint whether criminal laboratory services are requested in the case. This information is necessary to alert the magisterial district judge, the district attorney, and the court that the defendant in the case may be liable for a criminal laboratory user fee. See 42 Pa.C.S. §  1725.3 that requires a defendant to be sentenced to pay a criminal laboratory user fee in certain specified cases when laboratory services are required to prosecute the case.

   Official Note

   Original Rule 104 adopted June 30, 1964, effective January 1, 1965; suspended January 31, 1970, effective May 1, 1970. New Rule 104 adopted January 31, 1970, effective May 1, 1970; renumbered Rule 132 September 18, 1973, effective January 1, 1974; amended October 22, 1981, effective January 1, 1982; amended November 9, 1984, effective January 2, 1985; amended July 25, 1994, effective January 1, 1995; renumbered Rule 104 and Comment revised August 9, 1994, effective January 1, 1995; renumbered Rule 504 and Comment revised March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001; Comment revised March 9, 2006, effective September 1, 2006.

   Committee Explanatory Reports:

   Report explaining the July 25, 1994 amendment published with Court’s Order at 24 Pa.B. 4068 (August 13, 1994).

   Report explaining the August 9, 1994 Comment revisions published at 22 Pa.B. 6 (January 4, 1992); Final Report published with the Court’s Order at 24 Pa.B. 4342 (August 27, 1994).

   Final Report explaining the March 1, 2000 reorganization and renumbering of the rules published with the Court’s Order at 30 Pa.B. 1478 (March 18, 2000).

   Final Report explaining the March 3, 2006 Comment revision published with the Court’s Order at 36 Pa.B. 1392 (March 25, 2006).

 (A)  When more than one person is alleged to have participated in the commission of an offense, the issuing authority shall accept a complaint for each person charged. Each complaint shall contain the names of all persons alleged to have participated in the commission of the offense and shall contain a reference to the docket number of the complaints issued for the other alleged participants. Such complaints may be consolidated for hearing or such further action as may be required, and where complaints are consolidated, additional costs shall not be taxed as a result of the acceptance of separate complaints.

 (B)  When more than one offense is alleged to have been committed by one person arising from the same incident, the issuing authority shall accept only one complaint, and shall docket the matter as a single case.

 (C)  Upon application by any interested person and proof that any provision of paragraphs (A) or (B) was violated, a judge may order forfeiture of all additional costs of the issuing authority accrued by reason of such violation, and thereafter such costs shall not be taxed in the case.

   For criteria as to cases in which joinder is required prior to trial, see Commonwealth v. Campana, 304 A.2d 432 (Pa. 1973).

   Official Note

   Original Rule 103, adopted June 30, 1964, effective January 1, 1965, suspended January 31, 1970, effective May 1, 1970. New Rule 103 adopted January 31, 1970, effective May 1, 1970; renumbered Rule 131 and amended September 18, 1973, effective January 1, 1974; renumbered Rule 105 and amended August 9, 1994, effective January 1, 1995; renumbered Rule 505 and amended March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001.

   Committee Explanatory Reports:

   Report explaining the August 9, 1994 amendments published at 22 Pa.B. 6 (January 4, 1992); Final Report published with the Court’s Order at 24 Pa.B. 4342 (August 27, 1994).

 (A)  When the affiant is not a law enforcement officer, the complaint shall be submitted to an attorney for the Commonwealth, who shall approve or disapprove it without unreasonable delay.

 (B)  If the attorney for the Commonwealth:

   (1)  approves the complaint, the attorney shall indicate this decision on the complaint form and transmit it to the issuing authority;

   (2)  disapproves the complaint, the attorney shall state the reasons on the complaint form and return it to the affiant. Thereafter, the affiant may petition the court of common pleas for review of the decision.

   For the contents of a private complaint, see Rule 504.

   In all cases where the affiant is not a law enforcement officer, the complaint must be submitted for approval or disapproval by the attorney for the Commonwealth.

   The district attorney may ‘‘transmit’’ the complaint to the issuing authority pursuant to paragraph (B)(1) by returning it to the affiant for delivery.

   Official Note

   Original Rule 105 adopted June 30, 1964, effective January 1, 1965; suspended January 31, 1970, effective May 1, 1970. New Rule 105 adopted January 31, 1970, effective May 1, 1970; renumbered Rule 133 and amended September 18, 1973, effective January 1, 1974; amended January 23, 1975, effective September 1, 1975; amended October 22, 1981, effective January 1, 1982; rescinded November 9, 1984, effective January 2, 1985. Present Rule 133 adopted November 9, 1984, effective January 2, 1985; renumbered Rule 106 and amended August 9, 1994, effective January 1, 1995; amended March 22, 1996, effective July 1, 1996; renumbered Rule 506 and amended March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001.

   Committee Explanatory Reports:

   Final Report explaining the August 9, 1994 amendments published with the Court’s Order at 24 Pa.B. 4342 (August 27, 1994).

   Final Report explaining the March 22, 1996 amendments published with the Court’s Order at 26 Pa.B. 1690 (April 13, 1996).

 (A)  The district attorney of any county may require that criminal complaints, arrest warrant affidavits, or both filed in the county by police officers, as defined in these rules, have the approval of an attorney for the Commonwealth prior to filing.

 (B)  If the district attorney elects to proceed under paragraph (A), the district attorney shall file a certification with the court of common pleas, which certification shall state whether prior approval of police complaints, or arrest warrant affidavits, or both shall be required, shall specify which offenses or grades of offenses shall require such prior approval, and shall also specify the date such procedure is to become effective. The court of common pleas shall thereupon promulgate a local rule in the following form, setting forth the offenses or grades of offenses specified in the certification and stating whether prior approval of police complaints, arrest warrant affidavits, or both shall be required:

   RULE     . APPROVAL OF POLICE (COMPLAINTS)
(ARREST WARRANT AFFIDAVITS)
(COMPLAINTS AND ARREST WARRANT AFFIDAVITS)
BY ATTORNEY FOR THE COMMONWEALTH.

  The District Attorney of        County having filed a certification pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 507, (criminal complaints) (arrest warrant affidavits) (criminal complaints and arrest warrant affidavits) by police officers, as defined in the Rules of Criminal Procedure, charging

 (C)  If an attorney for the Commonwealth disapproves a police complaint, arrest warrant affidavit, or both, the attorney shall furnish to the police officer who prepared the complaint, affidavit, or both a written notice of the disapproval, in substantially the following form, and the attorney shall maintain a record of the written notice.

   D. A. File Number 

   COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

   NOTICE AND RECORD OF DISAPPROVAL

SUMMARY OF FACTS AND PROBABLE CAUSE

   PCIC/NCIC check reveals no outstanding warrants.

   Date:Source of Information: 

REASON(S) FOR DISAPPROVAL
(Please check appropriate reason)

IC = Insufficient Corroboration	UV = Unavailable or Un-
IE = Insufficient Evidence	cooperative Victim
II = Identification Inconclusive	WC = Witness Credibility/
IJ = Interest of Justice	Contradicted
IS = Inadmissible Evidence	ID = Inadequate Description
IP = Insufficient Probable Cause	of Persons, Premises,
LJ = Lacks Jurisdiction	or Property
LP = Lacks Prosecutorial Merit	NS = Insufficient Cause for
UW = Unavailable or Un-	Nighttime Search
cooperative Witness

   Other: 

   DISAPPROVED BY:

   DATE: 

 (D)  No defendant shall have the right to relief based solely upon a violation of this rule.

   This rule gives the district attorney of each county the option of requiring that criminal complaints and/or arrest warrant affidavits filed in that county by police officers, as defined in Rule 103, shall have the prior approval of an attorney for the Commonwealth. Under the rule, the district attorney may elect to require prior approval of police complaints, or arrest warrant affidavits (see Rule 513), or both. In addition, the district attorney is given the authority to define which offenses or grades of offenses will require such prior approval. For example, the district attorney may specify that prior approval will be required only if a felony is charged, or that prior approval will be required for all cases; i.e., whenever a misdemeanor or felony is charged.

   In principle, this rule was promulgated and intended solely to enable an attorney for the Commonwealth to evaluate whether there is substance to the complaint and arrest warrant affidavit, and to give the prosecutor the option of assuming some control over the initiation of the proceedings. Allowing a law-trained prosecutor, rather than the police, to exercise the initial charging decision, as well as the decision regarding which charges to bring, is endorsed by the American Bar Association Project on Standards Relating to the Administration of Criminal Justice, The National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, and the American Law Institute Model Code of Pre-Arraignment Procedure. See ABA STANDARDS, PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE FUNCTION, STANDARD 3-3.4 (Approved 1979); NAC STANDARDS ON COURTS, STANDARD 1.2, PROCEDURE FOR SCREENING (1973); ALI MODEL CODE OF PRE-ARRAIGNMENT PROCEDURE, §  130.2 (1975). Among the advantages generally asserted are that the prosecutor, whose responsibility it is to try cases, is in the best position to assess the existence of probable cause, whether additional police investigation is necessary before the filing of criminal charges, and to assess which charges should be brought. Moreover, the prosecutor’s assumption of the initial charging function may result in significant savings of time and money by reducing the later withdrawal of cases or charges by the prosecutor.

   To assume and exercise the charging function properly, the district attorney must have sufficient personnel and other resources to provide that an attorney for the Commonwealth is available 24 hours a day. Some counties may not have sufficient personnel and other resources. Therefore, the rule authorizes assumption of the charging function on a local option basis.

   Under this rule, requiring prior approval of police complaints, arrest warrant affidavits, or both is solely at the election of the district attorney. It is intended that once the certification is filed, the court of common pleas must promulgate the effectuating local rule. The local rule mechanism is used primarily for the advantage of notice, publication, and recordation, which are inherent in the local rule process. The parentheticals are used in the local rule form of paragraph (B) because, under paragraph (A), the district attorney has the alternatives of requiring prior approval of only complaints, or only arrest warrant affidavits, or both complaints and arrest warrant affidavits. The effectuating local rule will have to set forth which of these 3 alternatives has been selected by the district attorney, in accordance with the district attorney’s certification.

   The district attorney (or a successor district attorney) may withdraw the requirement of prior approval. This may be accomplished by filing a notice of withdrawal with the court of common pleas. In such event, the court of common pleas must rescind the local rule. The district attorney (or a successor district attorney) may also change the scope of the prior approval requirement by filing a new certification, in which event the court of common pleas shall promulgate a new local rule.

   As used in this rule, ‘‘attorney for the Commonwealth’’ is intended to include not only the district attorney and any deputy or assistant district attorney in the county, but also the Attorney General, and any deputy or assistant attorney general, in those cases which the Attorney General is authorized by law to prosecute in the county.

   See Rule 202 for a similar option as to search warrant applications.

   See Rule 544 for the procedures requiring the written approval of the attorney for the Commonwealth for the refiling of a complaint.

   Official Note

   Rule 101A adopted December 11, 1981, effective July 1, 1982; Comment revised July 12, 1985, effective January 1, 1986; January 1, 1986 effective date extended to July 1, 1986; renumbered Rule 107 and amended August 9, 1994, effective January 1, 1995; Comment revised October 8, 1999, effective January 1, 2000; renumbered Rule 507 and amended March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001.

   Committee Explanatory Reports:

   Report explaining the August 9, 1994 amendments published at 22 Pa.B. 6 (January 4, 1992); Final Report published with the Court’s Order at 24 Pa.B. 4342 (August 27, 1994).

   Final Report concerning the October 8, 1999 Comment revision published with the Court’s Order at 29 Pa.B. 5509 (October 8, 1999).

 (A)  Before accepting a complaint for filing, the issuing authority shall ascertain and certify on the complaint that:

   (1)  the complaint has been properly completed and executed; and

   (2)  when prior submission to an attorney for the Commonwealth is required, an attorney has approved the complaint.

 (B)  Upon certification of the above matters, the issuing authority shall accept the complaint for filing, and the case shall proceed as otherwise provided in these rules.

   This rule was amended in 1994 to clarify the procedures that the issuing authority must follow before a complaint may be filed. For the rules governing the issuance of process after a complaint is filed, see generally Rule 509 (Use of Summons or Warrant of Arrest in Court Cases) and Rule 518 (Procedure in Court Cases Initiated by Arrest Without Warrant).

   See Rule 513 concerning the procedures for the issuance of an arrest warrant.

   While the rule continues to require a written certification, the form of certification was deleted in 1985 because it is no longer necessary to control the specific form of written certification.

   For the requirement that probable cause for the issuance of an arrest warrant be contained in an affidavit, see Rule 513.

   Under paragraph (A)(2), the method by which the district attorney approves and transmits a private complaint pursuant to Rule 506(B)(1) may be determined by local practice.

   Private complaints must first be submitted to the district attorney for approval or disapproval under Rule 506. For private complaint procedures in summary cases, see Rule 421.

   Paragraph (A)(2) also applies when a district attorney elects to proceed under Rule 507 (Approval of Police Complaints and Arrest Warrant Affidavits by Attorney for the Commonwealth—Local Option).

   Official Note

   Original Rule 106 adopted June 30, 1964, effective January 1, 1965; suspended January 31, 1970, effective May 1, 1970. New Rule 106 adopted January 31, 1970, effective May 1, 1970; renumbered Rule 134 and amended September 18, 1973, effective January 1, 1974; amended January 23, 1975, effective September 1, 1975; amended April 26, 1979, effective July 1, 1979; Comment revised April 24, 1981, effective July 1, 1981; amended October 22, 1981, effective January 1, 1982; amended November 9, 1984, effective January 2, 1985; renumbered Rule 108 and amended August 9, 1994, effective January 1, 1995; Comment revised March 22, 1996, effective July 1, 1996; renumbered Rule 508 and amended March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001.

   Committee Explanatory Reports:

   Final Report explaining the August 9, 1994 amendments published with the Court’s Order at 24 Pa.B. 4342 (August 27, 1994).

   Final Report explaining the March 22, 1996 Comment revision published at 26 Pa.B. 1690 (April 13, 1996).

 If a complaint charges an offense that is a court case, the issuing authority with whom it is filed shall:

   (1)  issue a summons and not a warrant of arrest in cases in which the most serious offense charged is a misdemeanor of the second degree or a misdemeanor of the first degree in cases arising under 75 Pa.C.S. §  3802, except as set forth in paragraph (2);

   (2)  issue a warrant of arrest when:

     (a)   one or more of the offenses charged is a felony or murder; or

     (b)   the issuing authority has reasonable grounds for believing that the defendant will not obey a summons; or

     (c)   the issuing authority has reasonable grounds for believing that the defendant poses a threat of physical harm to any other person or to himself or herself; or

     (d)   the summons was mailed pursuant to Rule 511(A) and has been returned undelivered; or

     (e)   the identity of the defendant is unknown; or

   (3)  issue a summons or a warrant of arrest, within the issuing authority’s discretion, when the offense charged does not fall within any of the categories specified in paragraphs (1) or (2).

   This rule provides for the mandatory use of a summons instead of a warrant in court cases except in the special circumstances enumerated in paragraphs (2) and (3).

   Before a warrant may be issued pursuant to paragraph (2)(d) when a summons is returned undelivered, the summons must have been served upon the defendant by both first class mail and certified mail, return receipt requested as provided in Rule 511(A), and both the certified mail and the first class mail must have been returned undelivered. ‘‘Undelivered’’ includes a return receipt that is signed by someone other than the defendant.

   Pursuant to Rule 511, a return receipt signed by the defendant or a notation on the transcript that the first class mailing was not returned within 20 days is proof that the defendant received notice of the summons for purposes of paragraph (2)(d). See also Rule 543(D)(1).

   When a defendant has been released pursuant to Rule 519(B), the issuing authority must issue a summons.

   See Rule 1003 (Procedure in Non-Summary Municipal Court Cases), paragraph (C), for the procedures for issuing a summons and a warrant in Philadelphia.

   It is expected when a case meets the requirements for the issuance of a summons, the police officer will proceed during the normal business hours of the proper issuing authority except in extraordinary circumstances. See Rule 117 (Coverage: Issuing Warrants; Preliminary Arraignments and Summary Trials; and Setting and Accepting Bail).

   The procedure in paragraph (3) allows the issuing authority to exercise discretion in whether to issue a summons or an arrest warrant depending on the circumstances of the particular case. Appropriate factors for issuing a summons rather than an arrest warrant will, of course, vary. Among the factors that may be taken into consideration are the severity of the offense, the continued danger to the victim, the relationship between the defendant and the victim, the known prior criminal history of the defendant, etc. However, in all cases in which the defendant has been released pursuant to Rule 519(B), a summons shall be issued.

   Official Note

   Original Rule 108 adopted June 30, 1964, effective January 1, 1965; suspended January 31, 1970, effective May 1, 1970. New Rule 108 adopted January 31, 1970, effective May 1, 1970; renumbered Rule 102 and amended September 18, 1973, effective January 1, 1974; amended December 14, 1979, effective April 1, 1980; Comment revised April 24, 1981, effective July 1, 1981; amended October 22, 1981, effective January 1, 1982; renumbered Rule 109 and amended August 9, 1994, effective January 1, 1995; renumbered Rule 509 and amended March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001; Comment revised August 24, 2004, effective August 1, 2005; amended June 30, 2005, effective August 1, 2006; amended May 1, 2007, effective September 4, 2007, and May 1, 2007 Order amended May 15, 2007.

   Committee Explanatory Reports:

   Report explaining the August 9, 1994 amendments published at 22 Pa.B. 6 (January 4, 1992); Final Report published with the Court’s Order at 24 Pa.B. 4342 (August 27, 1994).

   Final Report explaining the March 1, 2000 reorganization and renumbering of the rules published with the Court’s Order at 30 Pa.B. 1478 (March 18, 2000).

   Final Report explaining the August 24, 2004 Comment revision adding a new second paragraph elaborating on paragraph (2)(c) published with the Court’s Order at 34 Pa.B. 5025 (September 11, 2004).

   Final Report explaining the June 30, 2005 amendments concerning in which cases a summons or a warrant are issued published with the Court’s Order at 35 Pa.B. 3911 (July 16, 2005).

   Final Report explaining the May 1, 2007 amendments amending paragraph (2)(d) and the Comment and deleting paragraph (2)(e) published with the Court’s Order at 37 Pa.B. 2503 (June 2, 2007).

   The provisions of this Rule 509 amended August 24, 2004, effective August 1, 2005, 34 Pa.B. 5016; amended June 30, 2005, effective August 1, 2006, 35 Pa.B. 3901; amended May 1, 2007, effective September 4, 2007, 37 Pa.B. 2496. Immediately preceeding text appears at serial pages (312430) to (312431).

PART B(2). Summons Procedures

Rule 510. Contents of Summons; Notice of Preliminary Hearing.

 (A)  Every summons in a court case shall command the defendant to appear before the issuing authority for a preliminary hearing at the place and on the date and at the time stated on the summons. The date set for the preliminary hearing shall be not less than 20 days from the date of mailing the summons unless the issuing authority fixes an earlier date upon the request of the defendant or the defendant’s attorney with the consent of the affiant.

 (B)  The summons shall give notice to the defendant:

   (1)  of the right to secure counsel of the defendant’s choice and, for those who are without financial resources, of the right to assigned counsel in accordance with Rule 122;

   (2)  that bail will be set at the preliminary hearing; and

   (3)  that if the defendant fails to appear on the date, and at the time and place specified on the summons, the case will proceed in the defendant’s absence, and a bench warrant will be issued for the defendant’s arrest.

 (C)  A copy of the complaint shall be attached to the summons.

   For the summons procedures in non-summary cases in the Municipal Court of Philadelphia, see Rule 1003(C).

   When a defendant appears for a preliminary hearing pursuant to a summons under this rule and is held for court, the issuing authority should require the defendant to submit to administrative processing and identification procedures (such as fingerprinting) as authorized by law. It is suggested that these processing procedures be made a condition of bail or release. See Criminal History Record Information Act, 18 Pa.C.S. §  9112.

   See Rule 511 for service of the summons and proof of service.

   See Rule 543(D) for the procedures when a defendant fails to appear for the preliminary hearing.

   For the consequences of defects in a summons in a court case, see Rule 109.

   Official Note

   Original Rule 109 adopted June 30, 1964, effective January 1, 1965; suspended January 31, 1970, effective May 1, 1970. New Rule 109 adopted January 31, 1970, effective May 1, 1970; renumbered Rule 110 and amended September 18, 1973, effective January 1, 1974; amended October 22, 1981, effective January 1, 1982; amended November 9, 1984, effective January 2, 1985; amended August 9, 1994, effective January 1, 1995; renumbered Rule 510 and amended March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001; amended August 24, 2004, effective August 1, 2005; amended May 1, 2007, effective September 4, 2007, and May 1, 2007 Order amended May 15, 2007.

   Committee Explanatory Reports:

   Report explaining the August 9, 1994 amendments published at 22 Pa.B. 6 (January 4, 1992); Final Report published with the Court’s Order at 24 Pa.B. 4342 (August 27, 1994).

   Final Report explaining the March 1, 2000 reorganization and renumbering of the rules published with the Court’s Order at 30 Pa.B. 1478 (March 18, 2000).

   Final Report explaining the August 24, 2004 amendments concerning notice that case will proceed in defendant’s absence published with the Court’s Order at 34 Pa.B. 5025 (September 11, 2004).

   Final Report explaining the May 1, 2007 amendments paragraph (B)(3) published with the Court’s Order at 37 Pa.B. 2503 (June 2, 2007).

 (A)  The summons shall be served upon the defendant by both first class mail and certified mail, return receipt requested. A copy of the complaint shall be served with the summons.

 (B)  Proof of service of the summons by mail shall include:

   (1)  a return receipt signed by the defendant; or

   (2)  the returned summons showing that the certified mail was not signed by the defendant and a notation on the transcript that the first class mailing of the summons was not returned to the issuing authority within 20 days after the mailing.

   This rule was amended in 2004 to require that the summons be served by both first class mail and certified mail, return receipt requested.

   Paragraph (B) sets forth what constitutes proof of service of the summons by mail in a court case for purposes of these rules.

   Official Note

   Original Rule 111, adopted June 30, 1964, effective January 1, 1965; suspended January 31, 1970, effective May 1, 1970. New Rule 111 adopted January 31, 1970, effective May 1, 1970; renumbered Rule 112 September 18, 1973, effective January 1, 1974; renumbered Rule 511 March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001; amended August 24, 2004, effective August 1, 2005; amended May 1, 2007, effective September 4, 2007, and May 1, 2007 Order amended May 15, 2007.

   Committee Explanatory Reports:

   Final Report explaining the March 1, 2000 reorganization and renumbering of the rules published with the Court’s Order at 30 Pa.B. 1478 (March 18, 2000).

   Final Report explaining the August 24, 2004 amendments adding new paragraph (B) concerning proof of service published with the Court’s Order at 34 Pa.B. 5025 (September 11, 2004).

   Final Report explaining the May 1, 2007 amendments amending paragraph (B)(2) concerning proof of service published with the Court’s Order at 37 Pa.B. 2503 (June 2, 2007).

 The defendant shall appear before the issuing authority for a preliminary hearing on the date, and at the time and place specified in the summons. If the defendant fails to appear, the issuing authority shall [issue a warrant for the arrest of the defendant and] proceed as provided in Rule 543(D).

   For the proper time for the preliminary hearing, see Rule 510.

   When a defendant appears for a preliminary hearing pursuant to a summons and is held for court, the issuing authority should require that the defendant submit to administrative processing and identification procedures (fingerprinting, for example) as authorized by law. It is recommended that this requirement be made a condition of bail or release. See Criminal History Record Information Act, 18 Pa.C.S. §  9112.

   For the procedures in non-summary cases in the Municipal Court, see Chapter 10.

   Official Note

   Rule 113 adopted September 18, 1973, effective January 1, 1974; amended August 9, 1994, effective January 1, 1995; renumbered Rule 512 and Comment revised March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001; amended August 24, 2004, effective August 1, 2005; amended May 1, 2007, effective September 4, 2007, and May 1, 2007 Order amended May 15, 2007.

   Committee Explanatory Reports:

   Report explaining the August 9, 1994 amendments published at 22 Pa.B. 6 (January 4, 1992); Final Report published with the Court’s Order at 24 Pa.B. 4342 (August 27, 1994).

   Final Report explaining the March 1, 2000 reorganization and renumbering of the rules published with the Court’s Order at 30 Pa.B. 1478 (March 18, 2000).

   Final Report explaining the August 24, 2004 amendments cross-referencing Rule 543(D) published with the Court’s Order at 34 Pa.B. 5025 (September 11, 2004).

   Final Report explaining the May 1, 2007 amendments deleting the warrant language published with the Court’s Order at 37 Pa.B. 2503 (June 2, 2007).

   The provisions of this Rule 512 amended August 24, 2004, effective August 1, 2005, 34 Pa.B. 5016; amended May 1, 2007, effective September 4, 2007, 37 Pa.B. 2496. Immediately preceeding text appears at serial page (315221).

PART B(3). Arrest Procedures in Court Cases

 (A)  In the discretion of the issuing authority, advanced communication technology may be used to submit a complaint and affidavit(s) for an arrest warrant and to issue an arrest warrant.

 (B)  No arrest warrant shall issue but upon probable cause supported by one or more affidavits sworn to before the issuing authority in person or using advanced communication technology. The issuing authority, in determining whether probable cause has been established, may not consider any evidence outside the affidavits.

 (C)  Immediately prior to submitting a complaint and affidavit to an issuing authority using advanced communication technology, the affiant must personally communicate with the issuing authority by any device which, at a minimum,allows for simultaneous audio-visual communication. During the communication, the issuing authority shall verify the identity of the affiant, and orally administer an oath to the affiant.

 (D)  At any hearing on a motion challenging an arrest warrant, no evidence shall be admissible to establish probable cause for the arrest warrant other than the affidavits provided for in paragraph (B).

   Paragraph (A) recognizes that an issuing authority either may issue an arrest warrant using advanced communication technology or order that the law enforcement officer appear in person to apply for an arrest warrant.

   This rule does not preclude oral testimony before the issuing authority, but it requires that such testimony be reduced to an affidavit prior to issuance of a warrant. All affidavits in support of an application for an arrest warrant must be sworn to before the issuing authority prior to the issuance of the warrant. The language ‘‘sworn to before the issuing authority’’ contemplates, when advanced communication technology is used, that the affiant would not be in the physical presence of the issuing authority. See paragraph (C).

   This rule carries over to the arrest warrant the requirement that the evidence presented to the issuing authority be reduced to writing and sworn to, and that only the writing is subsequently admissible to establish that there was probable cause. In these respects, the procedure is similar to that applicable to search warrants. See Rule 203.

   For a discussion of the requirement of probable cause for the issuance of an arrest warrant, see Commonwealth v. Flowers, 369 A.2d 362 (Pa. Super. 1976).

   The affidavit requirements of this rule are not intended to apply when an arrest warrant is to be issued for noncompliance with a citation, with a summons, or with a court order.

   An affiant seeking the issuance of an arrest warrant, when permitted by the issuing authority, may use advanced communication technology as defined in Rule 103.

   When advanced communication technology is used, the issuing authority is required by this rule to (1) determine that the evidence contained in the affidavit(s) establishes probable cause, and (2) verify the identity of the affiant.

   The ‘‘visual’’ requirement in paragraph (C) must allow, at a minimum, the issuing authority to see the affiant at the time the oath is administered and the information received.

   Under Rule 540, the defendant receives a copy of the warrant and supporting affidavit at the time of the preliminary arraignment.

   Official Note

   Rule 119 adopted April 26, 1979, effective as to arrest warrants issued on or after July 1, 1979; Comment revised August 9, 1994, effective January 1, 1995; renumbered Rule 513 and amended March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001; amended May 10, 2002, effective September 1, 2002.

   Committee Explanatory Reports:

   Report explaining the August 9, 1994 Comment revisions published at 22 Pa.B. 6 (January 4, 1992); Final Report published with the Court’s Order at 24 Pa.B. 4342 (August 27, 1994).

   Final Report explaining the March 1, 2000 reorganization and renumbering of the rules published with the Court’s Order at 30 Pa.B. 1477 (March 18, 2000).

   Final Report explaining the May 10, 2002 amendments concerning advanced communication technology published with the Court’s Order at 32 Pa.B. 2591 (May 25, 2002).

 (A)  When a warrant of arrest has been issued and it appears necessary or desirable to issue duplicates thereof for execution, the issuing authority may issue any number of duplicates. Each duplicate shall have the same force and effect as the original. Costs may be taxed only for one such warrant and only one service fee shall be charged.

 (B)  After service and execution of an original or duplicate warrant, the issuing authority may reissue the warrant if the purpose for which the original or duplicate has been issued has not been accomplished.

   This rule permits the use of advanced communication technology for the issuance of duplicate and reissued arrest warrants.

   Under this rule, warrant information transmitted by using advanced communication technology has the same force and effect as a duplicate or reissued arrest warrant. This rule does not require that the transmitted warrant information be an exact copy of the original warrant for purposes of execution under Rule 515. Nothing in this rule, however, is intended to curtail the Rule 540(C) requirement that the issuing authority provide the defendant with an exact copy of the warrant at the preliminary arraignment. See Rule 513 (Requirements for Issuance).

   This rule originally used the term ‘‘alias warrant’’ to describe the reissuance of a warrant that has been served and executed but has not accomplished its original purpose. the term ‘‘alias warrant’’ is archaic and its meaning obscure, leading to potential confusion. With the 2005 amendments, the terminology of the rule has been simplified by deleting ‘‘alias warrant’’ and replacing it with ‘‘reissue,’’ thereby retaining the underlying practice previously described by the term ‘‘alias warrant.’’

   Official Note

   Original Rule 113 adopted June 30, 1964, effective January 1, 1965; suspended January 31, 1970, effective May 1, 1970. New Rule 113 adopted January 31, 1970, effective May 1, 1970; renumbered Rule 121 September 18, 1973, effective January 1, 1974; amended August 9, 1994, effective January 1, 1995; renumbered Rule 514 and amended March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001; Comment revised May 10, 2002, effective September 1, 2002; amended October 19, 2005, effective February 1, 2006.

   Committee Explanatory Reports:

   Report explaining the August 9, 1994 amendments published at 22 Pa.B. 6 (January 4, 1992); Final Report published with the Court’s Order at 24 Pa.B. 4342 (August 27, 1994).

   Final Report explaining the March 1, 2000 reorganization and renumbering of the rules published with the Court’s Order at 30 Pa.B. 1478 (March 18, 2000).

   Final Report explaining the May 10, 2002 Comment revision concerning advanced communication technology published with the Court’s Order at 32 Pa.B. 2591 (May 25, 2002).

   Final Report explaining the October 19, 2005 amendments to paragraph (B) deleting ‘‘alias warrant’’ published with the Court’s Order at 35 Pa.B. 6090 (November 5, 2005).

 (A)  A warrant of arrest may be executed at any place within the Commonwealth.

 (B)  A warrant of arrest shall be executed by a police officer.

   No substantive change in the law is intended by paragraph (A) of this rule; rather, it was adopted to carry on those provisions of the now repealed Criminal Procedure Act of 1860 that had extended the legal efficacy of an arrest warrant beyond the jurisdictional limits of the issuing authority. The Judicial Code now provides that the territorial scope of process shall be prescribed by the Supreme Court’s procedural rules. 42 Pa.C.S. § §  931(d), 1105(b), 1123(c), 1143(b), 1302(c), 1515(b).

   For the definition of police officer, see Rule 3.

   Section 8953 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. §  8953, provides for the execution of warrants of arrest beyond the territorial limits of the police officer’s primary jurisdiction. See also Commonwealth v. Mason, 490 A.2d 421 (Pa. 1985).

   Pursuant to Rule 540, the defendant is to receive a copy of the warrant and the supporting affidavit at the time of the preliminary arraignment.

   For purposes of executing an arrest warrant under this rule, warrant information transmitted by using advanced communication technology has the same force and effect as an original arrest warrant. This rule does not require that the transmitted warrant information be an exact copy of the original warrant. Nothing in this rule, however, is intended to curtail the Rule 540(C) requirement that the issuing authority provide the defendant with an exact copy of the warrant. See Rule 513 (Requirements for Issuance).

   Official Note

   Formerly Rule 124, adopted January 28, 1983, effective July 1, 1983; amended July 12, 1985, effective January 1, 1986; January 1, 1986 effective date extended to July 1, 1986; renumbered Rule 122 and Comment revised August 9, 1994, effective January 1, 1995; renumbered Rule 515 and amended March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001; Comment revised May 10, 2002, effective September 1, 2002.

   Committee Explanatory Reports:

   Report explaining the August 9, 1994 Comment revisions published at 22 Pa.B. 6 (January 4, 1992); Final Report published with the Court’s Order at 24 Pa.B. 4342 (August 27, 1994).

   Final Report explaining the March 1, 2000 reorganization and renumbering of the rules published with the Court’s Order at 30 Pa.B. 1477 (March 18, 2000).

   Final Report explaining the May 10, 2002 Comment revision concerning advanced communication technology published with the Court’s Order at 32 Pa.B. 2591 (May 25, 2002).

 (A)  When a defendant has been arrested in a court case, with a warrant, within the judicial district where the warrant of arrest was issued, the defendant shall be afforded a preliminary arraignment by the proper issuing authority without unnecessary delay.

 (B)  When a preliminary arraignment is conducted using advanced communication technology pursuant to Rule 540(A), the defendant shall be taken to an advanced communication technology site that, in the judgment of the arresting officer, is most convenient to the place of arrest without regard to the boundary of any magisterial district or judicial district.

   This rule was amended in 1983 to permit closed circuit television preliminary arraignment, to insure that the preliminary arraignment is not delayed and the defendant is not detained unduly because of the unavailability of a particular issuing authority (see Rule 132), to reflect that ‘‘judicial district’’ is the appropriate subdivision of the Commonwealth, and to make the wording of this rule consistent with related rules. See Rules 431 and 517. These amendments are not intended to affect the responsibility of the police and issuing authorities to insure prompt preliminary arraignments.

   This rule is intended to permit the use of advanced communication technology (including two-way simultaneous audio-visual communication and closed circuit television) in preliminary arraignments. See Rule 540 and Comment for the procedures governing the use of advanced communication technology in preliminary arraignments.

   This rule permits a defendant to be transported to an advanced communication technology site that is located outside the judicial district of arrest for preliminary arraignment. The arresting officer should determine which site is the most convenient to the place of arrest without regard to the boundary of any magisterial district or judicial district.

   Official Note

   Original Rule 116 adopted June 30, 1964, effective January 1, 1965; suspended January 31, 1970, effective May 1, 1970. New Rule 116 adopted January 31, 1970, effective May 1, 1970; renumbered Rule 122 September 18, 1973, effective January 1, 1974; amended January 28, 1983, effective July 1, 1983; Comment revised July 12, 1985, effective January 1, 1986, effective date extended to July 1, 1986; renumbered Rule 123 and Comment revised August 9, 1994, effective January 1, 1995; renumbered Rule 516 and Comment revised March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001; amended May 10, 2002, effective September 1, 2002.

   Committee Explanatory Reports:

   Report explaining the August 9, 1994 Comment revisions published at 22 Pa.B. 6 (January 4, 1992); Final Report published with the Court’s Order at 24 Pa.B. 4342 (August 27, 1994).

   Final Report explaining the March 1, 2000 reorganization and renumbering of the rules published with the Court’s Order at 30 Pa.B. 1477 (March 18, 2000).

   Final Report explaining the May 10, 2002 amendments concerning advanced communication technology published with the Court’s Order at 32 Pa.B. 2591 (May 25, 2002).

 (A)  When a defendant has been arrested in a court case, with a warrant, outside the judicial district where the warrant of arrest was issued, the defendant shall be taken without unnecessary delay to the proper issuing authority in the judicial district of arrest for the purpose of posting bail, as permitted by law.

 (B)  Such issuing authority shall advise the defendant of the right to post bail. If bail is posted, the defendant shall be admitted to bail, conditioned upon the defendant’s appearance for the preliminary arraignment before the proper issuing authority in the judicial district where the warrant was issued, at a date certain not less than 5 nor more than 10 days thereafter.

 (C)  When a defendant fails to post bail, the arresting person shall:

   (1)  return the defendant to the judicial district where the warrant was issued, without unnecessary delay, for preliminary arraignment by the proper issuing authority; or

   (2)  lodge the defendant in a suitable place of detention in the judicial district of arrest, and forthwith notify the proper issuing authority in the judicial district where the warrant was issued of the defendant’s detention, and the place of such detention. Upon receipt of this notice, the issuing authority shall, without unnecessary delay, cause the defendant to be brought to the judicial district where the warrant was issued for preliminary arraignment by the proper issuing authority.

 (D)  When a defendant has been held for 48 hours or more without preliminary arraignment, in a place of detention outside the judicial district where the warrant was issued, because of the inability to post bail, the defendant shall be discharged from custody upon application of any interested person to a judge of a court of the judicial district of detention; provided that, upon cause shown the judge may grant one or more extensions of the defendant’s detention to an early date, fixed in the order, but if the defendant remains in custody and has not been removed to the judicial district where the warrant was issued at the end of the extended detention period, the defendant shall be discharged from custody.

 (E)  When a defendant who has posted bail and been released from custody before preliminary arraignment thereafter fails to appear at the time fixed, the proper issuing authority in the judicial district where the warrant was issued shall forthwith cause the bail to be forfeited according to law, and issue a bench warrant. If the defendant is thereafter arrested outside the judicial district where the bench warrant was issued, the defendant shall not be entitled to post bail in the judicial district where arrested, but shall be taken as soon as practicable to the judicial district where the bench warrant was issued for preliminary arraignment by the proper issuing authority.

 (F)  When, upon application of any interested person, it is shown to the satisfaction of a judge of a court in the judicial district where the warrant of arrest was issued, that the defendant was returned to that judicial district without being given the opportunity to post bail, as provided in paragraphs (A) and (B), and that had such opportunity been given, the defendant would have been able to post such bail, the judge shall have the discretion to:

   (1)  discharge the defendant from custody; or

   (2)  release the defendant on bail, conditioned upon the defendant’s appearance at the preliminary hearing; and

   (3)  forfeit all costs, including mileage and transportation charges, of the arresting and transporting person, in order that such costs and charges shall not be taxed in the case.

 (G)  All recognizances accepted under this rule shall forthwith be transmitted to the proper issuing authority in the judicial district where the warrant was issued.

   Nothing in this rule prevents a defendant from consenting to dispense with the procedures in paragraph (A) if the defendant is afforded a preliminary arraignment without unnecessary delay in the judicial district where the warrant was issued.

   See Rule 518 for using advanced communication technology following execution of arrest warrant outside the judicial district of issuance.

   For preliminary hearing procedures, see Rules 540 and 541.

   Section 8953 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. §  8953, provides for the execution of warrants of arrest beyond the territorial limits of the police officer’s primary jurisdiction. See also Commonwealth v. Mason, 507 Pa. 396, 490 A.2d 421 (1985).

   Paragraph (E) originally used the term ‘‘alias warrant’’ to describe the type of warrant issued when a defendant is arrested outside the judicial district of issuance, is released on bond by a magisterial district judge in the judicial district of arrest conditioned on the defendant’s appearance at a preliminary arraignment in the judicial district of issuance, and then fails to appear. Because the term ‘‘alias warrant’’ is an archaic term that refers to the reissuance of a warrant when the original purpose of the warrant has not been achieved, and the warrant issued in paragraph (E) is issued for the failure to appear as contemplated by Rule 536(A)(1)(b), paragraph (E) was amended in 2005 by changing the terminology to ‘‘bench warrant.’’

   Official Note

   Original Rule 117 adopted June 30, 1964, effective January 1, 1965; suspended January 31, 1970, effective May 1, 1970. New Rule 117 adopted January 31, 1970, effective May 1, 1970; renumbered Rule 123 September 18, 1973, effective January 1, 1974; amended January 28, 1983, effective July 1, 1983; renumbered Rule 124 and amended August 9, 1994, effective January 1, 1995; amended December 27, 1994, effective April 1, 1995; renumbered Rule 517 and amended March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001; Comment revised May 10, 2002, effective September 1, 2002; amended October 19, 2005, effective February 1, 2006.

   Committee Explanatory Reports:

   Report explaining the August 9, 1994 amendments published at 22 Pa.B. 6 (January 4, 1992); Final Report published with the Court’s Order at 24 Pa.B. 4342 (August 27, 1994).

   Report explaining the December 27, 1994 amendments published at 24 Pa.B. 1673 (April 2, 1994); Final Report published with the Court’s Order at 25 Pa.B. 142 (January 14, 1995).

   Final Report explaining the March 1, 2000 reorganization and renumbering of the rules published with the Court’s Order at 30 Pa.B. 1478 (March 18, 2000).

   Final Report explaining the May 10, 2002 Comment revision concerning advanced communication technology published with the Court’s Order at 32 Pa.B. 2591 (May 25, 2002).

   Final Report explaining the October 19, 2005 amendments to paragraph (E) changing ‘‘alias warrant’’ to ‘‘bench warrant’’ published with the Court’s Order at 35 Pa.B. 6090 (November 5, 2005).

   The provisions of this Rule 517 amended May 10, 2002, effective September 1, 2002, 32 Pa.B. 2582; amended October 19, 2005, effective February 1, 2006, 35 Pa.B. 6089. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (289088) to (289090).

 (A)  When a defendant has been arrested in a court case, with a warrant, outside the judicial district where the warrant of arrest was issued, the defendant may be taken for a preliminary arraignment or the posting of bail to an advanced communication technology site that, in the judgment of the arresting officer, is most convenient to the place of arrest without regard to the boundary of any magisterial district or judicial district; and

   (1)  the defendant must be taken to the advanced communication technology site without unnecessary delay.

   (2)  The preliminary arraignment may be conducted pursuant to Rule 540 by the proper issuing authority in the magisterial district or judicial district in which the warrant was issued; or

   (3)  the defendant may post bail as permitted by law with the proper issuing authority in the judicial district in which the defendant was arrested.

 (B)  If a preliminary arraignment is conducted pursuant to paragraph (A)(2), and the defendant does not post bail, the issuing authority who conducted the preliminary arraignment shall commit the defendant to the jail in the judicial district in which the defendant was arrested or the judicial district in which the warrant was issued.

   (1)  The issuing authority may transmit to the jail any required documents by using advanced communication technology.

   (2)  When a monetary condition of bail is set by the issuing authority who conducted the preliminary arraignment, the payment of the monetary condition shall be made to either the issuing authority who imposed the monetary condition or the proper issuing authority in the judicial district in which the defendant was arrested.

 (C)  Pursuant to paragraph (A)(3), when the defendant appears via advanced communication technology before the proper issuing authority in the judicial district in which the defendant was arrested, the procedures set forth in Rule 517 shall be followed.

   This rule sets forth the procedures for using advanced communication technology when a defendant is arrested with a warrant outside the judicial district in which it was issued: when advanced communication technology is available, the defendant could be preliminarily arraigned by the issuing authority who issued the warrant, or the ‘‘on-duty’’ issuing authority in that judicial district, or ‘‘appear’’ via advanced communication technology before the proper issuing authority for the purpose of posting bail.

   See Rule 130 concerning venue.

   See Rule 132 concerning the continuous availability and temporary assignment of issuing authorities.

   When advanced communication technology is available only in the judicial district of arrest, the case would proceed under paragraph (A)(3), unless the defendant consents to dispense with the procedures in paragraph (A)(3), and the defendant is afforded a preliminary arraignment without unnecessary delay in the judicial district in which the warrant was issued.

   See Rule 540 and Comment for the procedures governing the use in preliminary arraignments of two-way simultaneous audio-visual communication, which is a form of advanced communication technology.

   This rule permits a defendant to be transported to an advanced communication technology site that is located outside the judicial district of arrest. The arresting officer should determine which site is the most convenient to the place of arrest without regard to the boundary of any magisterial district or judicial district.

   Official Note

   New Rule 518 adopted May 10, 2002, effective September 1, 2002.

   Committee Explanatory Reports:

   Final Report explaining the May 10, 2002 adoption of new Rule 518 published with the Court’s Order at 32 Pa.B. 2591 (May 25, 2002).

 (A)  PRELIMINARY ARRAIGNMENT

   (1)  Except as provided in paragraph (B), when a defendant has been arrested without a warrant in a court case, a complaint shall be filed against the defendant and the defendant shall be afforded a preliminary arraignment by the proper issuing authority without unnecessary delay.

   (2)  When a preliminary arraignment is conducted by advanced communication technology pursuant to Rule 540(A), the defendant shall be taken to an advanced communication technology site that, in the judgment of the arresting officer, is most convenient to the place of arrest without regard to the boundary of any magisterial district or judicial district.

 (B)  RELEASE

   (1)  The arresting officer shall promptly release from custody a defendant who has been arrested without a warrant, rather than taking the defendant before the issuing authority, when the following conditions have been met:

     (a)   the most serious offense charged is a misdemeanor of the second degree or a misdemeanor of the first degree in cases arising under 75 Pa.C.S. 3802;

     (b)   the defendant poses no threat of immediate physical harm to any other person or to himself or herself; and

     (c)   the arresting officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant will appear as required.

   (2)  When a defendant is released pursuant to paragraph (B)(1), a complaint shall be filed against the defendant within 5 days of the defendant’s release. Thereafter, the issuing authority shall issue a summons, not a warrant of arrest, and shall proceed as provided in Rule 510.

   See Rule 1003 (Procedure in Non-Summary Municipal Court Caes) for procedures in Philadelphia Municipal Court.

   Paragraph (A) requires that the defendant receive a prompt preliminary arraignment. See Rule 540 (Preliminary Arraignment).

   Under paragraph (A), following arrest, the officer may file the complaint with the issuing authority using advanced communication technology.

   Paragraph (A) is intended to permit the use of advanced communication technology (including two-way simultaneous audio-visual communication equipment and closed circuit television) in preliminary arraignments. See Rule 540 and Comment for the procedures governing the use of advanced communication technology in preliminary arraignments.

   Paragraph (A)(2) permits a defendant to be transported to an advanced communication technology site that is located outside the judicial district of arrest for preliminary arraignment. The arresting officer should determine which site is the most convenient to the place of arrest without regard to the boundary of any magisterial district or judicial district.

   Paragraph (B)(1) requires the arresting officer, in specified circumstances, to release a defendant rather than take the defendant before an issuing authority for preliminary arraignment. Prior to the 2005 amendments, the release provision in paragraph (B) was optional. With the 2005 amendments, release is mandatory if the three criteria are met, and this requirement may not be modified by local rule.

   ‘‘Reasonable grounds’’ as used in paragraph (B)(1)(c) would include such things as concerns about the validity of the defendant’s address, the defendant’s prior contacts with the criminal justice system, and the police officer’s personal knowledge of the defendant.

   Pursuant to paragraph (B), the police will either promptly arrange for the defendant’s release or, if it is necessary to detain the defendant, proceed pursuant to paragraph (A). See Rule 117 (Coverage: Issuing Warrants; Preliminary Arraignments and Summary Trials; and Setting and Accepting Bail).

   Prompt release allows, of course, for the administration of any sobriety tests pursuant to the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S. §  1547, and for the completion of any procedures authorized by law.

   With respect to ‘‘necessary’’ delay, see, e.g., Commonwealth v. Williams, 484 Pa. 590, 400 A.2d 1258 (1979).

   By statute, a defendant may not be released but must be brought before the issuing authority for a preliminary arraignment when a police officer has arrested the defendant for failure to comply with the registration requirements for sexual offenders, see 18 Pa.C.S. §  4915(E)(2), or when a police officer has arrested the defendant in a domestic violence case, see 18 Pa.C.S. §  2711. See also 23 Pa.C.S. §  6113(c) of the Protection from Abuse Act.

   With reference to the provisions of paragraph (B)(2) relating to the issuance of a summons, see also Part B(2) of this Chapter, Summons Procedures.

   For procedures in summary cases initiated by an arrest without warrant, see Rule 441.

   Official Note

   Original Rule 118 and 118(a) adopted June 30, 1964, effective January 1, 1965, suspended January 31, 1970, effective May 1, 1970. New Rule 118 adopted January 31, 1970, effective May 1, 1970; renumbered Rule 130 September 18, 1973, effective January 1, 1974; amended December 14, 1979, effective April 1, 1980; amended April 24, 1981, effective July 1, 1981; amended January 28, 1983, effective July 1, 1983; Comment revised July 12, 1985, effective January 1, 1986; January 1, 1986 effective date extended to July 1, 1986; renumbered Rule 102 and amended August 9, 1994, effective January 1, 1995; Comment revised September 26, 1996, effective immediately; renumbered Rule 518 and amended March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001; renumbered Rule 519 and amended May 10, 2002, effective September 1, 2002; amended June 30, 2005, effective August 1, 2006.

   Committee Explanatory Reports:

   Report explaining the August 9, 1994 amendments published at 22 Pa.B. 6 (January 4, 1992); Final Report published with the Court’s Order at 24 Pa.B. 4342 (August 27, 1994).

   Report explaining the September 26, 1996 Comment revision published with the Court’s Order at 26 Pa.B. 4894 (October 12, 1996).

   Final Report explaining the March 1, 2000 reorganization and renumbering of the rules published with the Court’s Order at 30 Pa.B. 1478 (March 18, 2000).

   Final Report explaining the May 10, 2002 renumbering and amendments concerning advanced communication technology published with the Court’s Order at 32 Pa.B. 2591 (May 25, 2002).

   Final Report explaining the June 30, 2005 amendments concerning in which cases a defendant must be promptly released published with the Court’s Order at 35 Pa.B. 3911 (July 16, 2005).

   The provisions of this Rule 519 adopted May 10, 2002, effective September 1, 2002, 32 Pa.B. 2582; amended June 30, 2005, effective August 1, 2005, 35 Pa.B. 3901. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (289092) and (310539) to (310340).

PART C. Bail

Rule 520. Bail Before Verdict.

 (A)  Bail before verdict shall be set in all cases as permitted by law. Whenever bail is refused, the bail authority shall state in writing or on the record the reasons for that determination.

 (B)  A defendant may be admitted to bail on any day and at any time.

   Article I, §  14 of the Pennsylvania Constitution was amended in 1998 to read: ‘‘All prisoners shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, unless for capital offenses or for offenses for which the maximum sentence is life imprisonment or unless no condition or combination of conditions other than imprisonment will reasonably assure the safety of any person and the community when the proof is evident or presumption great; and the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in case of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.’’

   For the minor judiciary’s authority to set bail, see the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § §  1123(a)(5), 1143(a)(1), and 1515(a)(4).

   See Pa.R.J.C.P. 396, which provides that, at the conclusion of a transfer hearing, the juvenile court judge is to determine bail pursuant to these bail rules for a juvenile whose case is ordered transferred to criminal proceedings.

   See Commonwealth v. Truesdale, 449 Pa. 325, 296 A.2d 829 (1972), concerning the bail authority’s discretion to refuse bail under paragraph (A).

   Under paragraph (A), whenever the bail authority is a judicial officer in a court not of record, that officer must set forth in writing his or her reasons for refusing bail, and the written reasons must be included with the docket transcript.

   Rule 117(C) requires the president judge to ensure coverage is provided to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (B).

   Official Note

   Former Rule 4001 adopted July 23, 1973, effective 60 days hence, replacing prior Rule 4002; amended January 28, 1983, effective July 1, 1983; Comment revised September 23, 1985, effective January 1, 1986; rescinded September 13, 1995, effective January 1, 1996, and replaced by present Rule 4001. Present Rule 4001 adopted September 13, 1995, effective January 1, 1996. The January 1, 1996 effective dates extended to April 1, 1996; the April 1, 1996 effective dates extended to July 1, 1996; Comment revised September 3, 1999, effective immediately; renumbered Rule 520 and Comment revised March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001; Comment revised April 1, 2005, effective October 1, 2005; Comment revised June 30, 2005, effective August 1, 2006.

   Committee Explanatory Reports:

   Final Report explaining the provisions of the new rule published with the Court’s Order at 25 Pa.B. 4116 (September 30, 1995).

   Final Report explaining the September 3, 1999 Comment revision concerning the 1998 constitutional amendment providing for preventive detention published with the Court’s Order at 29 Pa.B. 4862 (September 18, 1999).

   Final Report explaining the March 1, 2000 reorganization and renumbering of the rules published with the Court’s Order at 30 Pa.B. 1478 (March 18, 2000).

   Final Report explaining the April 1, 2005 Comment revision concerning Rules of Juvenile Court Procedure published with the Court’s Order at 35 Pa.B. 2213 (April 16, 2005).

   Final Report explaining the June 30, 2005 revision of the Comment adding a cross-reference to Rule 117(C) published with the Court’s Order at 35 Pa.B. 3911 (July 16, 2005).

 (A)  BEFORE SENTENCING

   (1)  Capital and Life Imprisonment Cases

   When a defendant is found guilty of an offense which is punishable by death or life imprisonment, the defendant shall not be released on bail.

   (2)  Other Cases

     (a)   The defendant shall have the same right to bail after verdict and before the imposition of sentence as the defendant had before verdict when the aggregate of possible sentences to imprisonment on all outstanding verdicts against the defendant within the same judicial district cannot exceed 3 years.

     (b)   Except as provided in paragraph (A)(1), when the aggregate of possible sentences to imprisonment on all outstanding verdicts against the defendant within the same judicial district can exceed 3 years, the defendant shall have the same right to bail as before verdict unless the judge makes a finding:

       (i)   that no one or more conditions of bail will reasonably ensure that the defendant will appear and comply with the conditions of the bail bond;or

       (ii)   that the defendant poses a danger to any other person or to the community or to himself or herself.

     The judge may revoke or refuse to set bail based upon such a finding.

 (B)  AFTER SENTENCING

   (1)  When the sentence imposed includes imprisonment of less than 2 years, the defendant shall have the same right to bail as before verdict, unless the judge, pursuant to paragraph (D), modifies the bail order.

   (2)  Except as provided in paragraph (A)(1), when the sentence imposed includes imprisonment of 2 years or more, the defendant shall not have the same right to bail as before verdict, but bail may be allowed in the discretion of the judge.

   (3)  When the defendant is released on bail after sentencing, the judge shall require as a condition of release that the defendant either file a post-sentence motion and perfect an appeal or, when no post-sentence motion is filed, perfect an appeal within the time permitted by law.

 (C)  REASONS FOR REFUSING OR REVOKING BAIL

 Whenever bail is refused or revoked under this rule, the judge shall state on the record the reasons for this decision.

 (D)  MODIFICATION OF BAIL ORDER AFTER VERDICT OR AFTER SENTENCING

   (1)  When a defendant is eligible for release on bail after verdict or after sentencing pursuant to this rule, the existing bail order may be modified by a judge of the court of common pleas, upon the judge’s own motion or upon motion of counsel for either party with notice to opposing counsel, in open court on the record when all parties are present.

   (2)  The decision whether to change the type of release on bail or what conditions of release to impose shall be based on the judge’s evaluation of the information about the defendant as it relates to the release criteria set forth in Rule 523. The judge shall also consider whether there is an increased likelihood of the defendant’s fleeing the jurisdiction or whether the defendant is a danger to any other person or to the community or to himself or herself.

   (3)  The judge may change the type of release on bail, impose additional nonmonetary conditions as provided in Rule 527, or, if appropriate, impose or increase a monetary condition as provided in Rule 528.

 (E)  MUNICIPAL COURT

 Bail after a finding of guilt in the Municipal Court of Philadelphia shall be governed by the rules set forth in Chapter 10.

   For post-sentence procedures generally, see Rules 704 and 720. For additional procedures in cases in which a sentence of death or life imprisonment has been imposed, see Rules 810 and 811.

   For purposes of this rule, ‘‘verdict’’ includes a plea of guilty or nolo contendere which is accepted by the judge.

   Whenever the trial judge sets bail after sentencing pending appeal, paragraph (B)(3) requires that a condition of release be that the defendant perfect a timely appeal. However, the trial judge cannot, as part of that condition, require that the defendant perfect the appeal in less time than that allowed by law.

   Unless bail is revoked, the bail bond is valid until full and final disposition of the case. See Rule 534. The Rule 534 Comment points out that the bail bond is valid through all avenues of direct appeal in the Pennsylvania courts, but not through any collateral attack.

   Official Note

   Former Rule 4009, previously Rule 4011, adopted November 22, 1965, effective June 1, 1966; renumbered Rule 4009 and title amended July 23, 1973, effective 60 days hence; rescinded September 13, 1995, effective January 1, 1996, and replaced by Rule 532. Present Rule 4009 adopted September 13, 1995, effective January 1, 1996. The January 1, 1996 effective dates extended to April 1, 1996; the April 1, 1996 effective dates extended to July 1, 1996; renumbered Rule 521 and amended March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001; Comment revised June 4, effective November 1, 2004.

   Committee Explanatory Reports:

   Final Report explaining the March 22, 1993 amendments to former Rule 4010B(3), included in new Rule 521(B)(3), published with the Court’s Order at 23 Pa.B. 1699 (April 10, 1993).

   Final Report explaining the provisions of the new rule published with Court’s Order at 25 Pa.B. 4116 (September 30, 1995).

   Final Report explaining the March 1, 2000 reorganization and renumbering of the rules published with the Court’s Order at 30 Pa.B. 1477 (March 18, 2000).

 (A)  After an accused has been arrested for any offense, upon application of the attorney for the Commonwealth or defense counsel, and subject to the provisions of this chapter, a court may set bail for any material witness named in the application. The application shall be supported by an affidavit setting forth adequate cause for the court to conclude that the witness will fail to appear when required if not held in custody or released on bail. Upon receipt of the application, the court may issue process to bring any named witnesses before it for the purpose of demanding bail.

 (B)  If the material witness is unable to satisfy the conditions of the bail bond after having been given immediate and reasonable opportunity to do so, the court shall commit the witness to jail, provided that at any time thereafter and prior to the term of court for which the witness is being held, the court shall release the witness when the witness satisfies the conditions of the bail bond.

 (C)  Upon application, a court may release a witness from custody with or without bond, or grant other appropriate relief.

   This rule does not permit a witness to be detained prior to the arrest of the defendant, since an arrest might never take place and the witness could be held indefinitely.

   ‘‘Conditions of the bail bond’’ as used in this rule include the conditions set forth in Rule 526(A) and the conditions of release defined in Rules 524, 527, and 528.

   Pursuant to paragraph (C), a witness may be released on his or her own recognizance conditioned upon the witness’ written agreement to appear as required. See Rule 524.

   This rule does not affect the compensation and expenses of witnesses under the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. §  5903, or the provisions of the Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from Within or Without a State in Criminal Proceedings. See 42 Pa.C.S. § §  5963(c) and 5964(b) relating to bail.

   In cases in which bail is set for a material witness pursuant to this rule, the court should consider all the types of release permitted in Rule 524 and the conditions of nonmonetary release upon bail available under Rule 527. When a material witness is to be detained, the court should impose the least restrictive means of assuring that witness’ presence, including the use of release on the witness’ own recognizance or release upon other nonmonetary conditions, such as electronic monitoring, especially when the witness has limited financial means to post monetary bail.

   Official Note

   Former Rule 4017, previously Rule 4014, adopted November 22, 1965, effective June 1, 1966; renumbered Rule 4017 July 23, 1973, effective 60 days hence; Comment revised January 28, 1983, effective July 1, 1983; rescinded September 13, 1995, effective January 1, 1996, and replaced by present Rule 522. Present Rule 4017 adopted September 13, 1995, effective January 1, 1996. The January 1, 1996 effective dates extended to April 1, 1996; the April 1, 1996 effective date extended to July 1, 1996; renumbered Rule 522 and amended March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001; Comment revised April 28, 2006, effective August 1, 2006.

   Committee Explanatory Reports:

   Final Report explaining the provisions of the new rule published with Court’s Order at 25 Pa.B. 4116 (September 30, 1995).

   Final Report explaining the March 1, 2000 reorganization and renumbering of the rules published with the Court’s Order at 30 Pa.B. 1477 (March 18, 2000).

   Final Report explaining the April 28, 2006 revision to the Comment concerning electronic monitoring published with the Court’s Order at 36 Pa.B. 2279 (May 13, 2006).

   The provisions of this Rule 522 amended April 28, 2006, effective August 1, 2006, 36 Pa.B. 2279. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (304109) to (304110).

PART C(1). Release Procedures

Rule 523. Release Criteria.

 (A)  To determine whether to release a defendant, and what conditions, if any, to impose, the bail authority shall consider all available information as that information is relevant to the defendant’s appearance or nonappearance at subsequent proceedings, or compliance or noncompliance with the conditions of the bail bond, including information about:

   (1)  the nature of the offense charged and any mitigating or aggravating factors that may bear upon the likelihood of conviction and possible penalty;

   (2)  the defendant’s employment status and history, and financial condition;

   (3)  the nature of the defendant’s family relationships;

   (4)  the length and nature of the defendant’s residence in the community, and any past residences;

   (5)  the defendant’s age, character, reputation, mental condition, and whether addicted to alcohol or drugs;

   (6)  if the defendant has previously been released on bail, whether he or she appeared as required and complied with the conditions of the bail bond;

   (7)  whether the defendant has any record of flight to avoid arrest or prosecution, or of escape or attempted escape;

   (8)  the defendant’s prior criminal record;

   (9)  any use of false identification; and

   (10)  any other factors relevant to whether the defendant will appear as required and comply with the conditions of the bail bond.

 (B)  The decision of a defendant not to admit culpability or not to assist in an investigation shall not be a reason to impose additional or more restrictive conditions of bail on the defendant.

   This rule clarifies present practice, and does not substantively alter the criteria utilized by the bail authority to determine the type of release on bail or the conditions of release reasonably necessary, in the bail authority’s discretion, to ensure the defendant’s appearance at subsequent proceedings and compliance with the conditions of the bail bond.

   When deciding whether to release a defendant on bail and what conditions of release to impose, the bail authority must consider all the criteria provided in this rule, rather than considering, for example, only the designation of the offense or the fact that the defendant is a nonresident.

   In addition to the release criteria set forth in this rule, in domestic violence cases under Section 2711 of the Crimes Code, 18 Pa.C.S. §  2711, the bail authority must also consider whether the defendant poses a threat of danger to the victim.

   When a defendant who has been released on bail and is awaiting trial is arrested on a second or subsequent charge, the bail authority may consider that factor in conjunction with other release criteria in setting bail for the new charge.

   Official Note

   Previous Rule 4002, formerly Rule 4003, adopted November 22, 1965, effective June 1, 1966; renumbered Rule 4002 and amended July 23, 1973, effective 60 days hence; Comment revised January 28, 1983, effective July 1, 1983; rescinded September 13, 1995, effective January 1, 1996, and not replaced. Present Rule 4002 adopted September 13, 1995, effective January 1, 1996. The January 1, 1996 effective dates extended to April 1, 1996; the April 1, 1996 effective dates extended to July 1, 1996; amended September 3, 1999, effective immediately; renumbered Rule 523 and Comment revised March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001.

   Committee Explanatory Reports:

   Final Report explaining the provisions of the new rule published with the Court’s Order at 25 Pa.B. 4116 (September 30, 1995).

   Final Report explaining the September 3, 1999 amendment concerning the 1998 constitutional amendment providing for preventive detention and deleting ‘‘but only’’ published with the Court’s Order at 29 Pa.B. 4862 (September 18, 1999).

 (A)  If bail is set pursuant to Rule 520, the defendant shall be eligible for the following types of release on bail. The bail authority, after considering the release criteria in Rule 523, shall determine the type or combination of types of release on bail reasonably necessary, in the bail authority’s discretion, to ensure that the defendant will appear at all subsequent proceedings and comply with the conditions of the bail bond.

 (B)  All of the types of release in paragraph (C) shall be conditioned upon the defendant’s written agreement to appear and to comply with the conditions of the bail bond set forth in Rule 526(A).

 (C)  The types of release on bail are:

   (1)  Release On Recognizance (ROR): Release conditioned only upon the defendant’s written agreement to appear when required and to comply with the conditions of the bail bond in Rule 526(A).

   (2)  Release on Nonmonetary Conditions: Release conditioned upon the defendant’s agreement to comply with any nonmonetary conditions, as set forth in Rule 527, which the bail authority determines are reasonably necessary to ensure the defendant’s appearance and compliance with the conditions of the bail bond.

   (3)  Release on Unsecured Bail Bond: Release conditioned upon the defendant’s written agreement to be liable for a fixed sum of money if he or she fails to appear as required or fails to comply with the conditions of the bail bond. No money or other form of security is deposited.

   (4)  Release on Nominal Bail: Release conditioned upon the defendant’s depositing a nominal amount of cash which the bail authority determines is sufficient security for the defendant&