Miranda Rights Archives: Howard Lotspeich Alexander & Williams, PLLC

Short answer: If you think you have an outstanding arrest warrant in Tarrant, Dallas, or another North Texas county, don't ignore it and don't walk into a police station or courthouse alone to ask. A Texas arrest warrant doesn't expire, and it can be served anywhere in the state. The safest path is usually to have a criminal defense lawyer quietly confirm the warrant, find out the charge and bond amount, and arrange a planned surrender with bond ready. That way you're booked and released as quickly as possible instead of being arrested at work, at home, or during a traffic stop.

Every week we get calls from people across Dallas-Fort Worth who have heard that "there might be a warrant out." Maybe they missed a court date, a police detective left a business card at the house, an ex filed a report, or a friend saw their name online. The worst thing to do in that situation is nothing. The second worst is to guess.

At Howard Lotspeich Alexander & Williams, PLLC (HLAW), resolving warrants is one of the most common ways a criminal case first comes to us. This guide explains the types of warrants you might face in DFW, how to check for one, what happens when you surrender, and how a lawyer can make the process faster and less stressful.

Key Takeaways

• Warrants don't expire. A Texas arrest warrant stays active until it's served or recalled. Under Code of Criminal Procedure art. 15.06, it can be executed in any Texas county.
• There isn't one public database. Tarrant County has no single public list of active warrants. Dallas County has an online "wanted" search, but no search covers every court.
• Checking in person can get you arrested. Asking at a police station or courthouse counter can lead to an arrest on the spot.
• Class C warrants are different. Fort Worth Municipal Court calls itself a "Safe Harbor" court and doesn't arrest people who come in voluntarily to resolve Class C warrants.
• A planned surrender is usually best. For felony and Class A/B misdemeanor warrants, a lawyer can confirm the bond, line up a bondsman or cash bond, and arrange a surrender to keep jail time short.
• Ignoring it makes things worse. Missing court can lead to a separate bail jumping charge, a forfeited bond, and a higher bond the next time.

What Is an Arrest Warrant in Texas?

Under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure art. 15.01, a warrant of arrest is "a written order from a magistrate" directing a peace officer to take a person accused of an offense into custody. Once a warrant is issued, any officer who stops you and runs your name can arrest you. That includes a traffic stop on I-35W, a call to your home, or a routine ID check.

Common types of warrants in DFW

Type	What it usually means	Who issues it
Arrest warrant on a complaint	Police presented a probable cause affidavit, and a magistrate found enough to charge you.	Magistrate or judge
Capias	Issued after an indictment or information is filed, often when you haven't been arrested on the case yet.	District or county court
Bench warrant / bond forfeiture warrant	You missed a court date, and the judge ordered your arrest.	Trial court
Motion to revoke or adjudicate warrant	Your probation officer reported a violation.	Court supervising your probation
Class C alias or capias pro fine warrant	You missed a deadline on a ticket or didn't pay a fine.	Municipal or justice court

The type of warrant matters. It affects whether a bond is already set, whether you can post it on your own, and whether the judge has to see you first. For probation warrants in particular, see our article on defending against probation revocation.

How Do You Check for a Warrant in Tarrant or Dallas County?

There's no single statewide website that shows every active warrant, and each North Texas county handles this differently.

Tarrant County

Tarrant County doesn't publish a single public list of active criminal warrants. Case records live with the District Clerk (felonies) and the County Clerk (misdemeanors), and the Sheriff's Office handles warrant service. The county's Criminal Warrants page describes staff who handle the large volume of outstanding warrants from courts across the county. In practice, criminal defense lawyers and licensed bail bond agents routinely confirm warrant status, the charge, and the bond amount for clients.

Some smaller courts post limited lists. For example, Justice of the Peace Court 1 publishes an active warrants list for its own misdemeanor cases that is updated monthly. Lists like this cover only one court.

Dallas County

Dallas County offers an online Dallas County Wanted search. The Sheriff's Office also runs a warrant information line at (214) 761-9026, listed in its frequently asked questions. Even so, a clean result doesn't guarantee there's no warrant. Very recent warrants, sealed warrants, warrants from city courts, and warrants from other counties may not show up.

Fort Worth and other city courts

Traffic tickets and other Class C offenses are handled by municipal courts. The Fort Worth Municipal Court warrants page lets you look up and pay a warrant, and it notes that a $50 warrant fee is added when a warrant issues. Arlington, Dallas, Grand Prairie, and the other Metroplex cities each have their own municipal courts and separate lookups.

Why you shouldn't "just go ask"

The Fort Worth Police Department's FAQ says you can ask any officer or go to any police station for a warrant check. That's true, but if a felony or Class A/B warrant comes back, the officer can arrest you right then. Having a lawyer check first means you learn the charge, the court, and the bond before deciding when and how to surrender.

What Happens When You Turn Yourself In?

Step 1: Confirm the details

Before a planned surrender, your lawyer will confirm:

• The charge and its level (felony, Class A, or Class B).
• The court and cause number.
• Whether a bond amount has already been set, and how much it is.
• Whether there are any holds, such as warrants from other counties, probation holds, or immigration detainers.
• Whether the bond will come with conditions, such as an ignition interlock device, a protective order, GPS monitoring, or drug testing.

Step 2: Arrange the bond in advance

Tarrant County's bond information page says bonds may be posted 24 hours a day at the Bond Desk of the Tarrant County Corrections Center, 100 N. Lamar, Fort Worth. If you post bond yourself, you must pay the full amount. Many people use a surety (bail bond) company instead and pay a non-refundable fee. Some defendants qualify for a personal bond, though art. 17.03 bars personal bonds for many violent offenses and certain other charges. Our guides to Fort Worth bail bonds and what to expect after a Fort Worth arrest explain these options in more detail.

Step 3: Booking and release

At surrender, you'll be booked: fingerprinted, photographed, and checked for other warrants. Under art. 15.17, you must be brought before a magistrate (in person or by video) within 48 hours of arrest. The magistrate will tell you about the accusation, your right to a lawyer, your right to remain silent, and your right to request appointed counsel if you can't afford one, and will admit you to bail if the law allows. When a bond is already set and ready to post, the whole process usually goes faster.

What about a walk-through bond?

You may hear the term "walk-through" or "walk-in" bond. It generally means arriving at the jail with the bond already arranged so booking and release happen in one visit. Whether that's possible depends on the county, the charge, and whether a bond has been set. The procedures change over time, and a lawyer who handles these surrenders regularly will know the current process.

How Is the Bond Amount Decided?

If no bond has been set, or if the bond is too high, the judge or magistrate applies the rules in art. 17.15. Bail must be high enough to reasonably assure you'll come back to court, but "is not to be used to make bail an instrument of oppression." The court considers:

• The nature and circumstances of the offense, including whether it involved violence.
• Your ability to make bail.
• The safety of the alleged victim, law enforcement, and the community.
• Your criminal history, including any past failures to appear.
• Citizenship status.

A lawyer can file a motion to set a reasonable bond or reduce an excessive one, sometimes before you surrender. For more on this, see excessive bail as punishment in Texas. If you're held in jail and the State isn't ready for trial, art. 17.151 generally requires release on personal bond or a reduced bond after 90 days for most felonies, or after 30 days for misdemeanors punishable by more than 180 days in jail.

What If the Warrant Is for a Traffic Ticket or Class C Offense?

Class C warrants usually involve missed court dates or unpaid fines on traffic tickets and other fine-only offenses. The approach is different:

• Many city courts won't arrest you if you come in voluntarily. Fort Worth Municipal Court says it is a Safe Harbor court that doesn't arrest people who come in voluntarily to resolve Class C warrants, in person or virtually. Fort Worth also holds periodic Warrant Forgiveness events, where a judge may reduce fines and fees.
• You may have options besides paying in full. Fort Worth's court rules let a defendant without a lawyer appear in walk-in court to request deferred disposition, defensive driving, a payment plan, or community service in place of a fine. To cancel an alias warrant and set the case for a future docket, the court requires a bond.
• Unresolved tickets can block your license renewal. Under Transportation Code §706.004, DPS may deny renewal of your driver's license for failure to appear when the city or county has contracted with DPS.

Each city's policies differ, so check with that specific court or have a lawyer do it.

Why Ignoring a Warrant Makes Things Worse

• You can be arrested at any time. A warrant follows you into every traffic stop, airport, and police encounter, anywhere in Texas.
• Missing court can be a new crime. Under Penal Code §38.10, intentionally or knowingly failing to appear after release on bond is a Class A misdemeanor, or a third-degree felony if the underlying case is a felony. Having a reasonable excuse is a defense.
• Your bond history follows you. Under art. 17.15, judges consider past failures to appear when setting bail, so a prior no-show can mean a higher bond later.
• The weekend problem. Being arrested on a Friday night can mean spending more time in jail before the case can be addressed than if you'd surrendered on a planned weekday.

Don't Talk About the Case When You Surrender

Turning yourself in is not the time to explain your side. Officers may ask casual questions during booking, and anything you say about the facts of the case can be used against you. Be polite, give identifying information, and say you want to speak with your lawyer. Read more in Miranda or No Miranda: Do Not Make a Statement. If a detective has been trying to reach you before charges are filed, talk to a lawyer before returning the call.

A Practical Checklist If You Think You Have a Warrant

1. Don't ignore it. Write down any case or citation numbers, court letters, or detective contact information you have.
2. Call a criminal defense lawyer. Have the lawyer confirm the warrant, the charge, the court, and the bond.
3. Plan the bond. Decide between cash, a surety, or a request for a personal bond, and get funds or a bondsman lined up.
4. Pick the surrender time with your lawyer. Weekday mornings are often best.
5. Bring ID and leave valuables at home. Arrange a ride for when you're released.
6. Follow all bond conditions from the moment you're released, and stay in contact with your lawyer.

Frequently Asked Questions

Do arrest warrants expire in Texas?

No. A Texas arrest warrant stays active until it's served or recalled by the court, and under art. 15.06 it can be served in any county in the state. Some old charges may face limitations issues, but the warrant itself doesn't disappear.

Can I check for a warrant online in Tarrant County?

Only partly. Tarrant County doesn't provide a single public list of active criminal warrants. Some courts, such as Justice of the Peace Court 1, post limited lists. Criminal defense lawyers and bail bond agents routinely confirm warrant status for clients.

Will I be arrested if I go to Fort Worth Municipal Court about a ticket warrant?

According to the court, Fort Worth Municipal Court is a Safe Harbor court that doesn't arrest people who come in voluntarily to resolve outstanding Class C warrants. That policy applies to Fort Worth municipal cases, not to county felony or misdemeanor warrants.

How long will I be in jail if I turn myself in?

It depends on the charge, whether bond is set, and how busy the jail is. Under art. 15.17, you must see a magistrate within 48 hours. With a bond already set and posting arranged, release often happens the same day, but no lawyer can guarantee a timeline.

Can a lawyer get a warrant recalled without me going to jail?

Sometimes. For certain bench warrants and Class C warrants, a court may allow a lawyer to file a motion, post a bond, or set the case on a docket without a jail booking. For new felony and Class A/B charges, booking is almost always required, but planning ahead can keep the stay short.

What if the warrant is from another county?

Because warrants extend statewide, you can be arrested in Tarrant County on a Dallas, Denton, or Collin County warrant, and the reverse. You may wait to be transferred, or you may be able to post bond on the other county's warrant locally. A lawyer can sort out the logistics, especially when several warrants are involved.

Should I talk to the detective who called me?

Not before talking to a lawyer. Detectives often call to "get your side of the story" before deciding whether to seek a warrant. You have the right to remain silent and to have counsel present.

Talk to a Fort Worth Criminal Defense Lawyer About a Warrant

A warrant is easier to handle on your own schedule than at a traffic stop. HLAW's criminal defense attorneys help clients across Tarrant, Dallas, Denton, Collin, Johnson, and Parker counties confirm warrants, arrange bonds, and plan surrenders, and then defend the case that follows. That includes assault and violent offenses, drug charges, theft, and DWI. Call (817) 993-9249 or contact us online for a free, confidential consultation.

---

This article is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Warrant, bond, and court procedures vary by county and court and change over time. Consult a licensed Texas attorney about your situation.

Baiza v. State | How Slowly Should an Officer Read Miranda Warnings?

We all know that the police must read the Miranda warnings before they question someone that is under arrest.  But what does that look like in a practical sense? Can the officer read the Miranda warnings like the side effect warnings in a prescription drug commercial, where we can't understand them? Or does he have to read them slowly, ensuring that the person being questioned fully understands each provision?  This issue recently came up in Baiza v. State, an appellate case in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Gregory Baiza was convicted for sexual assault of his wife and sentenced to twelve years in prison. Baiza was in a common-law marriage with his wife and had two children together. There was an argument between the two when Baiza found out that his wife was pregnant with their third child. Baiza’s wife claims that Baiza forced himself on her after this argument. Eventually the police were called on the scene.

After Baiza’s wife left for the hospital, she decided to press charges on Baiza. A detective came over to get a statement from Gregory Baiza but he refused. The detective then placed Baiza under arrest. Baiza, however, admitted during the second recorded statement that his wife told him to stop but that he kept going - a statement that would ultimately lead to his conviction for rape at trial.

Baiza argued to the Eleventh Court of Appeals that this admission during the recorded statement should not have been allowed into evidence at the trial court. Baiza argued that when the detective read Baiza the Miranda warnings, he read them so fast that they were unintelligible. Specifically, Baiza argued that he did not hear the warning that he was allowed to terminate the interview at any time.

Strict Compliance with Miranda Rules Not Required, But the Reading of Rights Must be Intelligible

In reviewing this issue, the Eleventh Circuit notes that strict compliance with the Miranda rules is not required, but rather a “substantial compliance” will suffice. “Thus, the warnings given to an accused are effective even if not given verbatim, so long as they convey the ‘fully effective equivalent’ of the warnings.” In order for an admission to be allowed in court, the warnings must also be on the recording. The court listened to the recording to determine if the detective gave the prescribed warnings to Baiza. The detective read the warnings from a card to Baiza. The court slowed down the audio and determined that the detective did in fact inform Baiza that he has the right to terminate the interview. However, the Eleventh Circuit determined that when played at actual speed, the “right to terminate” warning is unintelligible.

The Eleventh Circuit determined that because the “right to terminate” warning was unintelligible, that the warnings were not given and that the trial court erred when it allowed the admission into evidence. The Court then went on to find that they did not have fair assurance that the error did not influence the jury or that the error influenced the jury only slightly by incorrectly allowing this admission into evidence. For these reasons, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial.

It is very difficult to get a case overturned, even when evidence has been incorrectly admitted. But here, the Court finds that even though the detective read Baiza his Miranda warnings, reading them so quickly as to make a key part unintelligible was enough to keep out an admission by Baiza from evidence. Specifically, the court finds that the “right to terminate” is a crucial part of the Miranda warnings and that a detective or officer cannot read them so quickly as to make them unintelligible or any admission shall not be admitted into evidence.

Read the full opinion in Baiza v. State.

In the landmark case Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court created what are now commonly referred to as "Miranda Rights." These rights were created to mitigate the coercive effect of interrogations while a defendant is in police custody. Recognizing that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit forced self-incrimination, the Supreme Court mandated that defendants are made aware of these rights before any custodial interrogation begins, namely their right to remain silent and their right to the presence of an attorney. However, if a defendant is not in custody, police officers do not have to read him or her their Miranda Rights, despite being questioned about an alleged crime.

A person is in custody for Miranda purposes when he or she is placed under formal arrest, or a reasonable person would not feel free to leave during questioning. If a defendant feels free to terminate the interrogation at any time, they are not in custody. The Court uses five factors in their analysis: (1) the length of the questioning, (2) the location of the questioning, (3) the accusatory, or non-accusatory, nature of the questioning, (4) the amount of restraint on the individual's physical movement, and (5) statements made by officers regarding the individual's freedom to move or leave. Using these factors and the totality of the circumstance, the Court will determine if the restraint on one's freedom arises to the degree usually associated with a formal arrest.

In United States v. Wright, a search warrant was executed at the defendant's home in connection to an on-going child pornography investigation. A police officer escorted the defendant to his police car where the defendant could wait during the search. The officer told the defendant that he was not under arrest and could leave whenever he wanted. He was not handcuffed or restrained in any way. Before being questioned, the defendant was read his Miranda Rights and again told that he could leave at any time because he was not under arrest. The defendant made several incriminating statements that he later moved to suppress at trial, arguing that he had unambiguously requested an attorney to be present during questioning.

Nevertheless, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the defendant was never in custody for Miranda purposes, so he was not entitled to the right of counsel, and thus the Court denied his motion. The defendant was made aware on at least two different occasions that he was not under arrest and that he could leave at anytime. Moreover, the defendant's movement was not restrained during questioning that prevented him from leaving, and his overall tone during the interview was cooperative since he was trying to tell his story to the police officer. Because of these factors, the Court held that the defendant's incriminating statements were admissible at trial.

As we continue to advise: Do not make any statements to the police when they are investigating you for a crime (regardless of whether you are in "custody'). Ask for an attorney and wait until you get one before you say anything.

Although the Fourth Amendment acts as a safeguard against unlawful search and seizures, the State can still use evidence it finds against a defendant in a consensual search of their property if the search is sufficiently detached from an illegal search that purges any unconstitutional taint. Accordingly, such a search is valid if the search was voluntary and an independent act of freewill.  In order to determine whether a search was an independent act of freewill, the Court analyzes several factors, none of which are controlling by themselves:

1. the temporal proximity of the illegal conduct and the consent,
2. the presence of intervening circumstances, and
3. the purpose and flagrancy of the initial misconduct.

In US v. Montgomery, the Defendant was stopped by a police officer and frisked during a traffic stop in front of the Defendant's house. As the officer frisked the Defendant, the Defendant pushed the officer's hands away from his pockets after the officer felt a bulge. The Defendant revealed that the bulge was cocaine, prompting his arrest and Mirandizing. The Defendant, eventually, consented to a search of his house. During the search, the Defendant was allowed into the house to obtain medicine and made several requests to officers on scene for his cell phone to erase some "naked pictures" that he did not want his father to find. The Defendant consented to one of the officers using his phone to delete the pictures, but the officer found what appeared to be child pornography. The Defendant was later indicted for possession of child pornography.

At trial, the Defendant claimed that the frisk and seizure of cocaine that led to his arrest was unlawful, which tainted his consent for the officer the see his cell phone. Nevertheless, the Court held that even if the frisk and seizure were illegal, the Defendant's several voluntary and independent acts of freewill relieved the search of the Defendant's phone of any unconstitutional taint, specifically, the Defendant asking several times to see his cell phone so that he could delete the naked images, and the Defendant consenting to a search of his phone after being Mirandized. Nothing was presented at trial that showed the police officers even wanted to search his cell phone. In the words of the Court, "[The Defendant] broached the phone search himself." Moreover, the Court also cited several intervening events and factors establishing that the Defendant's "consent was sufficiently detached from the arrest to purge any taint" such as the officers reading the Defendant his Miranda rights, the Defendant's criminal record, and the Defendant going into his house to retrieve his medicine.

Yet another reason why we advise NEVER GIVE CONSENT TO SEARCH, period.

United States v. Gonzalez-Garcia, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 3366 (5th Cir. Tex. Feb. 15, 2013)

A federal agent saw Appellant walk out of a house under surveillance as part of a drug investigation.  The agent approached Appellant, handcuffed him and placed him in his police vehicle.  Without advising Appellant of his Miranda rights, the agent asked him if he was guarding a drug-house and if there were drugs in the house.  Appellant replied, "Yes" to both questions and then requested an attorney.  The agent asked Appellant for consent to search the house, which Appellant granted.

The agents found over two thousand kilograms of marijuana in the house. The district court suppressed Appellant's admissions that he was guarding marijuana in the house because they were obtained in violation of Miranda, which the government conceded on appeal.  However, the district court refused to suppress the marijuana recovered from the house.

First, Appellant argued the marijuana should have been suppressed because the agent obtained consent to search from Appellant after he requested an attorney.  Second, Appellant claimed the agents' use of his admissions, which were later suppressed, automatically rendered his consent to search involuntary. The Court disagreed.

In Edwards v. Arizona the Supreme Court held when an accused invokes his right to counsel, he is not subject to further questioning until counsel has been made available to him.  However, a violation of the Edwards rule does not require suppression of physical, non-testimonial evidence.  Consequently, even if the agent violated Edwards when he asked Appellant for consent to search the house, that violation would not justify suppression of the marijuana, which is physical, non-testimonial evidence.

Next, the court held Appellant's consent was not automatically rendered involuntary because his Miranda rights were violated.  Such a rule is not consistent with the multi-factor approach courts must use when determining voluntariness.  Using that approach, and considering the Miranda violation, the district court found Appellant voluntarily consented to the search of the house.