Rule 131. Location of Proceedings Before Issuing Authority.

(A) An issuing authority within the magisterial district for which he or she is elected or 

appointed shall have jurisdiction and authority to receive complaints, issue 

warrants, hold preliminary arraignments, set and receive bail, issue commitments 

to jail, and hold hearings and summary trials.

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (A)(2), all preliminary arraignments 

shall be held in the issuing authority’s established office, a night court, 

or some other facility within the Commonwealth designated by the 

president judge, or the president judge’s designee.

(2) Preliminary arraignments may be conducted using advanced 

communication technology pursuant to Rule 540. The preliminary 

arraignment in these cases may be conducted from any site within the 

Commonwealth designated by the president judge, or the president 

judge’s designee.

(3) All hearings and summary trials before the issuing authority shall be 

held publicly at the issuing authority’s established office. For reasons 

of emergency, security, size, or in the interests of justice, the president 

judge, or the president judge’s designee, may order that a hearing or

hearings, or a trial or trials, be held in another more suitable location 

within the judicial district.

(4) The issuing authority may receive complaints, issue warrants, set and 

receive bail, and issue commitments to jail from any location within 

the judicial district, or from an advanced communication technology 

site within the Commonwealth.

(B) When local conditions require, the president judge may establish procedures for 

preliminary hearings or summary trials, in all cases or in certain classes of cases, 

to be held at a central place or places within the judicial district at certain specified 

times. The procedures established shall provide either for the transfer of the case 

or the transfer of the issuing authority to the designated central place as the needs

of justice and efficient administration require. The president judge shall petition 

the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts (AOPC) for such relocation 

of proceedings at a central place or places, and the Supreme Court of 

Pennsylvania shall make the ultimate decision as to whether to approve the 

petition. The petition procedure is as follows:
-2-

(1) Notice

(a) Written notice of the proposed change in location of 

proceedings shall be provided to all magisterial district 

judges in the county and to each municipality and each 

police department that would be affected by the

proposed petition.

(b) Notice of the proposal shall be provided to the public 

by posting of the proposal on the court or county 

official website and by any additional means that the 

president judge deems appropriate. The notice must be 

placed at least 30 days before submission of the 

proposal to the AOPC and must invite members of the 

public to provide written comment on the proposal. All 

written comments must be attached to the petition.

(c) Each magisterial district judge shall provide a written 

statement whether the judge supports or opposes the 

recommendation. These statements shall be attached 

to the petition. If any judge affected by the proposal 

fails to submit a statement within 30 days of the 

distribution of the written notice in subsection (a) 

above, the president judge shall note this fact in the

petition.

(2) Petition

(a) A petition containing the proposal shall be transmitted 

to the AOPC, with a copy sent to all magisterial district 

judges in the judicial district, to all municipalities

affected by the proposal, to all police departments 

affected by the proposal, and to the Supreme Court of

Pennsylvania. The petition shall contain the following:

(i) a statement detailing what local conditions

require the formation of a central court and what 

improvement would be made to the Magisterial 

District Court system with any data or other 

documentation,

(ii) an assessment of the impact on public 
-3-

accessibility to the relocated court proceedings,

(iii) an estimate of the fiscal impact of the proposal

for the county, municipalities, police 

departments and other stakeholders,

(iv) a copy of the statements from all affected 

magisterial district judges as to their position on 

the proposal, or a notation of any magisterial 

district judge who declined to provide such a 

statement, and

(v) a copy of the public notice that was posted 

regarding the proposal and all written comments.

(b) Answers in opposition to the petition may be submitted 

to the AOPC byany interested party within thirty days 

of the submission of the original petition. Any answer 

should include a concise statement of reasons why the 

petition should be denied and should reference the 

standards listed below. A copy of the answer shall be 

sent to the president judge and to the Supreme Court 

of Pennsylvania. The president judge may submit a 

response to the answer within fifteen days of the 

submission of the answer.

(3) Standards

(a) Any change shall not diminish the equitable 

distribution of cases between the magisterial district 

judges in the county.

(b) No change shall restrict public access to the courts.

(c) No change may create a situation where a duly elected 

magisterial district judge is hearing cases from outside 

the district from which he or she was elected on a 

regularly scheduled basis.

(4) Decision

The AOPC shall provide its recommendation as to whether to 

approve the petition to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. 
-4-

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania shall decide whether to 

approve the petition.

(5) Implementation

Following the approval of a petition, the president judge shall 

consult with the affected magisterial district judges to ensure 

that the changes are implemented without undue disruption.

Comment: [The 2002 amendments to paragraph (A) divided the paragraph into 

subparagraphs to more clearly distinguish between the locations for the different 

types of proceedings and business that an issuing authority conducts.] 

Paragraph (A)(3) permits the president judge, or the president judge’s designee, to 

order that a hearing or hearings be held in a location that is different from the issuing 

authority’s established office. [Nothing in this rule is intended to preclude the 

president judge, or the president judge’s designee, from issuing a standing order 

for a change in location. For example, this might be done when a state 

correctional institution is located in the judicial district and the president judge 

determines that, for security reasons, all preliminary hearings of the state 

correctional institution’s inmates will be conducted at that prison.] The creation 

of central courts is governed by paragraph (B) of this rule.

See Rule 540 and Comment for the procedures governing the use of advanced 

communication technology in preliminary arraignments.

See Rule 130 concerning the venue when proceedings are conducted by using 

advanced communication technology.

[Paragraph (B) of this rule is intended to facilitate compliance with the 

requirement that defendants be represented by counsel at the preliminary

hearing. Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U. S. 1 (1970).]

Paragraph (A)(4) permits issuing authorities to perform their official duties from an 

advanced communication technology site within the Commonwealth. The site may be 

located outside the magisterial district or judicial district where the issuing authority 

presides.

[This rule allows the president judge of a judicial district the discretion to determine 

what classes of cases require centralized preliminary hearings or summary trials, 

and requires the president judge, or the president judge’s designee, to establish a 

schedule of central places within the Commonwealth to conduct such hearings or 

summary trials, and the hours for the hearings or trials at the central locations.]
-5-

[Ideally, this rule should minimize the inconvenience to defense counsel and the 

attorney for the Commonwealth by eliminating the necessity of travel at various 

unpredictable times to many different locations throughout the judicial district for 

the purpose of attending preliminary hearings or summary trials. Finally, this rule 

allows preliminary hearings or summary trials for jailed defendants to be held at a 

location close to the place of detention.]

Paragraph (B) sets forth a procedure requiring examination of the effects of 

relocation to a central place or places, including inconvenience to the public. Such 

changes in location affect access to justice and may change procedures.

Therefore, this procedure mandates approval by the Supreme Court of 

Pennsylvania to ensure a more unified system as is done in similar matters like

Reestablishment of Magisterial Districts (42 Pa.C.S. §1503), Establishment of 

Offices (Pa.R.Civ.P.M.D.J. 101), etc.

Nothing in this rule limits the President Judges’ authority to develop county-wide 

systems for preliminary arraignments and coverage for other after-hours 

emergency matters per Pa.R.Crim.P. 117 (Coverage: Issuing Warrants; 

Preliminary Arraignments and Summary Trials; and Setting and Accepting Bail).

Ideally, the location of a central court should minimize inconvenience to the 

public. Long travel discourages the public from attending hearings, paying fines,

or posting bail, may result in dispositional delays and increased litigation costs, 

and may hinder access to emergency relief, such as protection from abuse orders.

Proximity to magisterial district courts “is an important ingredient in the public’s. 

. .trust in the judicial branch.” Report of the Magisterial District Reestablishment

Subcommittee Intergovernmental Task Force to Study the District Justice System,

2001.

This rule is not intended to reverse existing orders relocating magisterial district

judge proceedings to a central court.