County of Riverside v. McLaughin Facts:
Riverside County had a policy that a Gerstein hearing
3 additional detainees joined the suit the district court issued the injunction, holding that the count’s existing practice violated Gerstein
36 hours
Holding:
The count’s policy is unconstitutional because it violates the promptness requirement set forth in Gerstein.
Reasoning:
Gerstein does not require an immediate judicial hearing upon completing the booking process associated with arrest.
A suspect who has hearing w/i 48 hours can still violate Gerstein if he can prove the delay was unreasonable.
If the hearing is held after 48 hours, it is presumed to be unreasonable. ( Hurricane Katrina Situation)
Dissent:
The 4th amendment require a judicial determination of probable cause either before or promptly after arrest.
There is no justification in the Common Law or the 4th amend for delay after the administrative steps of the arrest Discussion Points:
Do you agree with majority or the dissent?
What does this case do to the holding of Gerstein? Time Frame
How should the county change its time? Need holiday court, etc.
What are the competing interest the court attempts to balance? Public safety interest of arresting someone suspected of a crime w/o prior judicial finding of p/c.
If a Gerstein hearing is held w/I 48 hours, who has the burden of proof to show the detention was un reasonable? Defendant
Other is based on the government.
U.S.v. Salerno
Facts:
Selerno and Cafaro were indicted of RICO Act, along with mail and wire fraud
At arraignment the government moved to have defendant detained pursuant to Bail Reform Act of 1984
Salerno and Cafaro appealing arguing that bail reform act is unconstitutional where it permits detention where a defendant is likely to commit future crimes
The 2nd. Cir of appeals agreed, that the criminal justice holds a person for past actions!
Issue:
Is the pre trial detention of a defendant for his potential for dangerousness
Holding:
The conditions of confinement established by the Bail Reform act a regulatory in nature and does not constitute punishment before trial in violated of the Due Process Clause
Reasoning:
The party challenging a statute has a heave burden
Challenger must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which an act would be valid
5th ament due process clause
Substantive due princess
Procedural due Process
8 amendment prohibition to bail
The court first looked at Congress’ legislative intent.
Court found there was no evidence that congress intended for the Bail Reform Act to be punitive.
Court found the prevention of danger to a community is a legitimate regulatory process.
Procedures reflect a regulatory process
The government’s interest in public safety is regulatory and out weighs the individuals liberty interest
Act is limited to a certain class of crimes.
Fair process
The court rejected the 8th amend. Challenge
Says nothing about whether bail should be available.
Dissent:
Indictment has become evidence of the defendant’s guilt.
Bell v. Wolfish
Facts
The plaintiffs filed a class action law suit challenging the legality of conditions facing pretrial detainees in the Metro Criminal center.
The petitions claimed that cavity searches, double bunking, restrictions on the reading materials. amounted to punishment before conviction.
Issue
Do the conditions of confinets violates the detainees constitutionally protected rights to liberty and due process?
Holding
The conditions of confinement at the MCC was constitutional because they were reasonable response to legitimate security concerns.
Additional the restrictions were only temporary because they were implanted against pre-trial detainees.
Law
To determine whether pre-trial condition is punishment, a court must determine whether the restriction is imposed for the purpose of punishment or because of some legitimate Gov. purpose
If a restriction is reasonably
