Understanding PA Rule 600 and Pre-Arrest Delay
Imagine finding out that you are being charged with a crime based on an incident that allegedly happened three or four years ago. You had no idea a warrant was out for your arrest, you haven't been hiding, and you’ve been living your life out in the open. Is the government allowed to let a case sit on a shelf for years before finally bringing you to trial?
In Pennsylvania, the answer is often no—but only if you have a lawyer who knows how to hold them accountable using Rule 600.
What is Rule 600?
Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 600 is designed to protect your constitutional right to a speedy trial. At its core, the rule sets a strict clock: The Commonwealth must bring a defendant to trial within 365 days from the date the criminal complaint is filed.
If the state blows past that one-year deadline without a valid legal excuse, the defense can file a motion asking the judge to dismiss all charges permanently.
The Pre-Arrest Delay Trap
If the police file a formal criminal complaint and get an arrest warrant before they actually pick you up, under rule 600, the speedy trial clock starts ticking the exact day that complaint is filed.
If weeks, months, or years pass between the day the paperwork is filed and the day you are put in handcuffs, that entire chunk of time counts against the prosecution—unless the state can prove they were working to find you.
The Core Test: "Due Diligence"
The prosecution cannot just say, "Well, we couldn't find him." To legally excuse a pre-arrest delay, the Commonwealth bears the burden of proving due diligence. This means they must show they made "reasonable efforts" to locate and apprehend you.
Pennsylvania courts look closely at what the police actually did, not what they could have done:
Active Diligence: In cases like Commonwealth v. Mitchell, the appellate courts ruled that police were diligent because detectives physically went out into the field, visited a suspect’s known address six to eight times and talked to family members to try and locate him.
Passive Failure: On the flip side, courts have repeatedly thrown out cases when police do the bare minimum. For example, In Commonwealth v. Collins, the police made a single unsuccessful attempt to visit two relatives’ homes, waited almost two months to visit the defendant’s mother’s home, and failed to contact the defendant’s probation officer—the court ruled this was not due diligence and dismissed the case.
If the police simply run a few database checks from their desks, mail a letter, and wait for you to accidentally cross paths with them years later, that is not due diligence. It is administrative neglect, and it violates your rights.
Why You Need an Aggressive Defense
When a case stretches out for years, memories fade, physical evidence disappears, and your ability to build a strong defense is deeply compromised. Rule 600 exists to prevent the state from hanging a dark cloud over your head indefinitely.
Winning a Rule 600 motion requires an intensive audit of the court dockets and a careful examination of all discovery. If you or a loved one were arrested on an old warrant or are facing severe delays in a Pennsylvania criminal case, contact us today to ensure your rights are fiercely protected.
