"His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights."* HALE v. HENKEL, 201 U.S. 43 (1906)
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/201/43.html
The POINT is*(and has been) that most WARRANTLESS ARRESTS are UNLAWFUL and WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE.
"In this connection appellant contends that his arrest, to which the search was incidental, was without probable cause.
...
Whether appellant's arrest was lawful depends upon whether it was made on probable or reasonable cause. (See U.S. Const., 4th & 14th Amends.; Cal. Const., art. I, § 19; Giordenello v. United States, 357 U.S. 480, 485 [2 L.Ed.2d 1503, 1509, 78 S.Ct. 1245]; Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 33 [10 L.Ed.2d 726, 738, 83 S.Ct. 1623]; Pen. Code, § 836, subd. 3.)
...
[3] In closing we note that it is now established that more evidence is required in support of probable cause to make a lawful arrest without a warrant therefor than is required to justify the issuance of a search warrant. (Aguilar v. Texas, supra, 378 U.S. 108, 111 [12 L.Ed.2d 723, 726]; People v. Madden, 2 Cal.3d 1017, 1023 [88 Cal.Rptr. 171, 471 P.2d 971].)
The judgment is reversed. The purported appeal from the denial of appellant's motion for a new trial is dismissed."*** People v. Johnson (1970) 13 Cal.App.3d 742
http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/cal...d/13/742.html*
A WARRANTLESS ARREST is PRIMA FACIE case that the ARREST was UNLAWFUL.
"It is true, as stated in Badillo v. Superior Court, 46 Cal.2d 269, 272 [294 P.2d 23]: "... the defendant makes a prima facie case when he establishes that an arrest was made without a warrant ..., and the burden then rests on the prosecution to show proper justification." However, in the case before us a reading of the record does not disclose that the officers made the arrest without a warrant. The question of whether the officers had a warrant was never asked, nor raised in the trial court. Appellant had ample opportunity to make the simple inquiry, but she apparently chose not to do so." *People v. Holguin, 145 Cal.App.2d 520 (1956)
http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/cal...d/145/520.html
That is IF you CHALLENGE the PRESUMPTION that it was LAWFUL.
And IF the ARREST was UNLAWFUL there is NO VALID SERVICE of PROCESS and the COURT has NO JURISIDICTION.
"[6] Courts of law have no inherent power to arrest citizens or place them in jail. The Legislature makes the law on that subject within constitutional limits. The jurisdiction of courts in matters of arrest is controlled by the Constitution in the first instance, and the next by statutory authorization. (In re Mulford, 73 Cal.App.2d 453 [166 P.2d 890].)
...
The citation used in the case at bar lacks the necessary ingredients to comply with the requirement of summons, and therefore the service of it does not confer upon the court jurisdiction of the person.."* Pousson v. Superior Court, 165 Cal.App.2d 750 (1958)
http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/cal...d/165/750.html
"Since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, the validity of such judgments may be directly questioned, and their enforcement in the State resisted, on the ground that proceedings in a court of justice to determine the personal rights and obligations of parties over whom that court has no jurisdiction do not constitute due process of law. Whatever difficulty may be experienced in giving to those terms a definition which will embrace every permissible exertion of power affecting private rights, and exclude such as is forbidden, there can be no doubt of their meaning when applied to judicial proceedings. They then mean a course of legal proceedings according to those rules and principles which have been established in our systems of jurisprudence for the protection and enforcement of private rights. To give such proceedings any validity, there must be a tribunal competent by its constitution-that is, by the law of its creation-to pass upon the subject-matter of the suit; and, if that involves merely a determination of the personal liability of the defendant, he must be brought within its jurisdiction by service of process within the State, or his voluntary appearance."* PENNOYER v. NEFF, 95 U.S. 714 (1877)
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/95/714.html [/b]