Which statement about warrantless arrest is correct?

• A. Allows arrest without a warrant for a felony or misdemeanor when there is reasonable cause to believe a crime was committed, regardless of presence.
• B. Requires probable cause and officer presence.
• C. Allows only for felonies observed by the officer.
• D. Requires the victim's consent.

Answer: (A)

Warrantless arrest rests on probable cause that a crime has occurred, not on the officer’s strict presence at the scene. An officer may arrest without a warrant when there is reasonable cause to believe a crime was committed, and this can apply to felonies and, in appropriate contexts, to misdemeanors, without requiring the offender to be present or the offense to have been witnessed. The idea is that the officer can seize someone without a warrant if there is solid reason to believe a crime happened, regardless of whether the crime was observed or where the suspect is.

The other statements are narrower or misleading. Requiring the officer to be present for a warrantless arrest would unduly limit the practice, and limiting warrantless arrests to felonies observed by the officer ignores the core concept that probable cause to believe a crime occurred can justify the arrest even if the exact moment wasn’t witnessed. Requiring the victim’s consent has no bearing on the legality of a warrantless arrest.