I have read that Socrates chose to go to court. Most websites simply say that he complied with a summons. Did he have a choice ? If he had ignored it would it have meant going into exile?
So it seems (based on this page) like, despite the absence of a police force there were circumstances in which accused criminals could be apprehended and brought to court by force (though this was the exception in most cases it was up to the victim or their family to deliver a summons that the accused had to turn up at a particular time and date):
However, summary arrest (apagoge see the Glossary entry) was possible in a limited set of circumstances, most notably in the case of “wrongdoers” (kakourgoi), a class that seems to have included much of what we think of as street criminals: certain types of thieves, house burglars, clothestealers, and pickpockets. If a man caught a thief “red-handed” (there is some dispute over whether the Greek term—ep’ autophoroi—requires that the criminal be caught in the act, or merely that his guilt be manifest, as for example, if stolen goods are found on his person)
Whether a crime against the state like this would warrant that response or not I don’ t know (I’m not a classical scholar)
So reading that page a bit more (as its not like I have work to do, oh wait 
) there is more detail on the public cases ( graphai, as opposed to the private cases, dikai, brought by private individual even for serious crimes like murder), which presumably the case against Socrates was. There does seem to be mechanisms to arrest the accused and force him to appear;
“Solon, who made these laws, did not give those who wanted to prosecute just one way of exacting justice from the offenders for each offense but many… for example thieves. You are strong and confident: use the summary arrest procedure; you risk a 1000 drachma fine. You are weaker: use ephegesis [the procedure for pointing out an offender for arrest by magistrates — VB/AL] to the magistrates; they will then manage the procedure. You are afraid of even that: use a graphe. You have no confidence in yourself and are too poor to risk a 1000 drachma fine: bring a dike before the arbitrator and you will run no risk. Now none of these actions is the same…. It is pretty much like that for all offenses.” (Dem. 22.25-6).
I can’t answer the question, but I’d like to jump in to say that while we know a lot, even down to details, about Roman law (much of the legal system of the continental European countries derives from it and is still heavily influenced by it, and a lot of original sources survive), much less is known about Greek law. The latter is not even remotely studied as much by legal historians. So it wouldn’t surprise me if the answer is a bit in the dark.
Do also note, some historians are not even sure if Socrates was real or did Plato etc, make him up for teaching?
We have none of his writings.
Plato is a known liar…err, Plato was known for making things up to illustrate a point, such as Atlantis.
All that is known about him comes from the accounts of others: mainly the philosopher Plato and the historian Xenophon, who were both his pupils; the Athenian comic dramatist Aristophanes (Socrates’s contemporary); and Plato’s pupil Aristotle, who was born after Socrates’s death. The often contradictory stories from these ancient accounts only serve to complicate scholars’ ability to reconstruct Socrates’s true thoughts reliably, a predicament known as the Socratic problem.[3] The works of Plato, Xenophon, and other authors who use the character of Socrates as an investigative tool, are written in the form of a dialogue between Socrates and his interlocutors and provide the main source of information on Socrates’s life and thought.
In other words, we have about as much evidence for Socrates as we do for Jesus. I say it is quite likely both were real.
That is a pretty fringe view. I mean historians being historians some might hold it, but it doesn’t make much sense. Plato, etc. were writing in living memory of Aristotle, so the idea that they could get away with making him up is pretty bizarre. And Aristophanes was a contemporary critic of Aristotle, who lampooned him in his play The Clouds during his lifetime. Which Plato went on to criticize as causing the death of Aristotle, that mades no sense at all if Aristotle didn’t exist (as his audience would have remembered clearly whether he actually existed or not, and whether the play was written about a real person)
What we know about Aristotle’s philosophy is completely at the mercy of Plato’s retelling but his existence as a real person who was executed is not.
Oops missed edit window 
Aristotle!=Socrates
This is a question about Athenian law at the time. Any debates over the existence of Socrates (or Jesus) are getting pretty far off-topic. Let’s stay focused on what we know about Athenian law and its enforcement from that time period.
Thanks griffin1977. Theoretically, at least, It looks like Socrates had choices. But then again, at this remove, it’s a knotty question. Given his character (as he has been presented to us (through Plato at least) he would probably have welcomed the challenge in court, even if I cost him his life.
Though note those choices are for the prosecutor not the accused. Athens had a system of volunteer prosecutors for public trials and to discourage malicious prosecutions they faced a fine if they brought a prosecution that failed to convince the jury.
My guess is that if Socrates had gone “nahh no thanks” and not turned up he’d have faced ephegesis: the prosecutor and the magistrates would have turned up at his house (presumably with some muscle, maybe the Scythian Archers) and the prosecutor pointed out him out to be apprehended and brought to court.
I forget which book I was reading about Socrates and Plato, which mentioned the chaotic events of the day. The tyrant (dictator) of Athens would assign assorted groups of citizens to arrest others, under threat of penalty themselves. The theory was to make all the citizens complicit in his oppression so none would want to bring back the old guard.
At one point, Socrates along with a group of other citizens was assigned to arrest some citizen. He simply went home, and apparently nothing happened to him at the time.
More detail from The Trial of Socrates
The standing of Socrates among his fellow citizens suffered mightily during two periods in which Athenian democracy was temporarily overthrown, one four-month period in 411-410 and another slightly longer period in 404-403. The prime movers in both of the anti-democratic movements were former pupils of Socrates, Alcibiades and Critias. Athenians undoubtedly considered the teachings of Socrates–especially his expressions of disdain for the established constitution–partially responsible for the resulting death and suffering. … Critias, first among an oligarchy known as the “Thirty Tyrants,” led the second bloody revolt against the restored Athenian democracy in 404. The revolt sent many of Athens’s leading democratic citizens (including Anytus, later the driving force behind the prosecution of Socrates) into exile, where they organized a resistance movement.
One incident involving Socrates and the Thirty Tyrants would later become an issue at his trial. Although the Thirty normally used their own gang of thugs for such duties, the oligarchy asked Socrates to arrest Leon of Salamis so that he might be executed and his assets appropriated. Socrates refused to do so. Socrates would point to his resistance to the order as evidence of his good conduct. On the other hand, Socrates neither protested the decision nor took steps to warn Leon of Salamis of the order for his arrest–he just went home. While good citizens of Athens were being liquidated right and left, Socrates–so far as we know–did or said nothing to stop the violence.
The horrors brought on by the Thirty Tyrants caused Athenians to look at Socrates in a new light. His teachings no longer seemed so harmless. He was no longer a lovable town eccentric. Socrates–and his icy logic–came to be seen as a dangerous and corrupting influence, a breeder of tyrants and enemy of the common man.
A general amnesty issued in 403 meant that Socrates could not be prosecuted for any of his actions during or before the reign of the Thirty Tyrants. He could only be charged for his actions during the four years preceding his trial in 399 B.C.E.
There’s a lot more background in the link. So basically, this was the sort of law enforcement that happened in those days. Democracy was as messy and fragile as it could be anywhere. Socrates was considered partly to blame for the mess, not a harmless eccentric, so the city leaders chose to get rid of him.
Thanks griffin1977. So it seems prosecutors/accusers had quite a few enforcement methods to exact compliance…