(a) If the magistrate is satisfied from the written examination that there is probable cause to believe the offense complained of has been committed and that there is probable cause to believe the defendant has committed it, then the magistrate shall issue an arrest warrant. The finding of probable cause shall be based on evidence, which may be hearsay in whole or in part; provided, however, that there is a substantial basis for believing the source of the hearsay to be credible and for believing that there is a factual basis for the information furnished.
Terms Used In Tennessee Code 40-6-205
Affidavit: A written statement of facts confirmed by the oath of the party making it, before a notary or officer having authority to administer oaths.
Arrest: Taking physical custody of a person by lawful authority.
Complaint: A written statement by the plaintiff stating the wrongs allegedly committed by the defendant.
Defendant: In a civil suit, the person complained against; in a criminal case, the person accused of the crime.
Evidence: Information presented in testimony or in documents that is used to persuade the fact finder (judge or jury) to decide the case for one side or the other.
Guardian: A person legally empowered and charged with the duty of taking care of and managing the property of another person who because of age, intellect, or health, is incapable of managing his (her) own affairs.
Hearsay: Statements by a witness who did not see or hear the incident in question but heard about it from someone else. Hearsay is usually not admissible as evidence in court.
Person: includes a corporation, firm, company or association. See Tennessee Code 1-3-105
Probable cause: A reasonable ground for belief that the offender violated a specific law.
Summons: Another word for subpoena used by the criminal justice system.
written: includes printing, typewriting, engraving, lithography, and any other mode of representing words and letters. See Tennessee Code 1-3-105
(b) In determining whether to issue an arrest warrant pursuant to subsection (a), or a criminal summons pursuant to § 40-6-215, the following shall apply:
(1) If a single or multiple affiants are seeking a warrant of arrest for a felony or misdemeanor offense, and at least one (1) or more of the affiants is a law enforcement officer, as defined by § 39-11-106, the magistrate shall issue an arrest warrant unless the law enforcement officer requests a summons be issued instead;(2) If a single or multiple affiants are seeking a warrant of arrest for a misdemeanor offense, as defined in § 39-11-110, and none of the affiants is a law enforcement officer, as defined by § 39-11-106, there is a presumption that the magistrate shall issue a criminal summons. The presumption is overcome if:
(A) The affiant or affiants request a warrant, submit sufficient information demonstrating the need for a warrant, and the magistrate agrees that an arrest warrant should be issued instead of a summons; or(B) The magistrate finds an arrest warrant is necessary to prevent immediate danger to a victim of domestic abuse, sexual assault or stalking as defined in § 36-3-601;(3) If a single or multiple affiants are seeking a warrant of arrest for a felony offense as defined in § 39-11-110, and none of the affiants is a law enforcement officer, as defined by § 39-11-106, there is a presumption that the magistrate shall not issue either a criminal summons as provided in § 40-6-215, or an arrest warrant. This presumption is overcome if the magistrate finds an arrest warrant is necessary to prevent immediate danger to a victim of domestic abuse, sexual assault or stalking as defined in § 36-3-601.(c) Notwithstanding this section, if the affiant to an affidavit of complaint for an arrest warrant is the parent or legal guardian of a child who is the victim of alleged criminal conduct, no arrest warrant shall issue to the affiant without the written approval of the district attorney general in the district in which the conduct occurred if:
(1) The person the affiant seeks to have arrested was an employee of a local education agency (LEA) at the time of the alleged offense; and(2) The affiant alleges that the LEA employee engaged in conduct that harmed the child of the affiant parent or legal guardian and, at the time of the conduct, the LEA employee had supervisory or disciplinary power over the child.
