The Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD)

THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

MICHAEL T. TEWALT, AFPD

The Top Ten questions about the IAD that you will be able to answer after today!

1. What is the IAD?

2. Why was it passed?

3. What is a Detainer and how does it apply to IAD?

4. Why should I care?

5. Where is speedy trial provision?

6. What is the remedy for violation?

7. Cant the speedy trial times be extended or tolled?

8. What is Anti-Shuttling?

9. Can you waive or forfeit rights?

10. How can I tell if IDA applies to my case?

What is the IAD?

The IAD is an interstate compact which provides a procedure wherein a prisoner currently incarcerated in one jurisdiction – the “sending state” – can be transferred to another jurisdiction – the “receiving state” – to dispose of outstanding criminal charges them in the receiving stated.

The purpose is “to encourage the expeditious and orderly disposition” of all charges and reduce a defendants’, as well as prison officials, uncertainty concerning total length of prisoner’s sentences. Article I.

Allows the inmate to participate in all rehabilitative programs otherwise available.

Who does it apply to?

48 states, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Washington D.C., and the United States have all signed the IAD. (Louisiana and Mississippi Not)

Ala. Code 15-9-81 (1995). Virtually identical to Fed IAD.

The IAD applies to transfers of sentenced prisoners for unrelated trials between two states, or from Fed to the States.

It does NOT apply to transfers of Federal prisoners between the several judicial districts for trial on Federal Charges. Hunter v. Samples, 15 F.3d 1011 (11th Cir. 1994).

IAD is considered procedural rules therefor not held to be constitutional guarantees. As such, all rights inferred by IAD may be waived by the prisoner.

Legislative History

While originally presented in 1956 by the Council of State Governments, it passed through Congress without opposition in 1970.

1969 Supreme Court Cases: Smith v. Hooey, and Dickey v. Florida, Smith: Prisoners have right to speedy trial. Good faith effort for reasonable time.

Dickey: Conviction in Florida set aside after state waited over 7 years to prosecute.

There is very limited legislative history of the IAD

Speedy Trial Act of 1974 was introduced at the same time as the IAD passed, and many courts have looked to the legislative history of the STA – purpose, policy, procedure – to interpret the IAD.

Courts have looked to the similar nature of the language and sanctions imposed for violations; dismissal with prejudice.

Since passed in 1970 the court docket loads, security requirements, and transportation costs have all changed substantially.

Pertinent Articles Article I & II – The purpose and definitions of the Act.

Sending State – Where prisoner is incarcerated

Receiving State – State where trial is to be had on indictment

Federal Government is a “State” under the IAD

Article III – Permits a prisoner to initiate final disposition of any untried indictment, information, or complaint against them in another State on whatever the basis is for which a detainer has been lodged against them.

Article IV – Permits the prosecuting authority of a state in which an untried indictment is pending to obtain temporary custody of a prisoner.

Article V – provides a detailed procedure for obtaining temporary custody.

Anti-Shuttling Provision: If trial is not had prior to returned. Article III(d) and Article IV(e).

Detainer “A detainer is a warrant placed on a prisoner to insure that the

prisoner, upon completion of the prison term, will be available to the prosecuting authority who filed the detainer.” Taking Stock of Detainer Statutes. Estimated one-half of detainers filed are never acted upon.

Threat to inmate: delayed prosecution cause detention centers to categorize prisoner as a greater risk for escape.

High security classification, security risk, loss of privileges, preferred housing, trusty status, honor farms or cams, and furlough/halfway house programs.

Cases where prosecutors have filed a detainer with no real intent of pursuing.

U.S. v. Mauro, recognized that federal authorities may use a wirt of habeas corpus ad prosequendum in order to gain custody of a prisoner in a state institution and thereby is not a “detainer” for purposes of triggering protection under the IAD. Upheld due to the protections of the Speedy Trial Act.

Procedures Article III(a): Must be transported within 180 days after formal request.

The inmate must be told about any pending detainers against him so he may exercise his right to request final disposition.

Only properly filed detainers are recognized by BOP. Must provide copy of the warrant or abstract with letter requesting detainer. P5800, Chapter 6(b).

Some detainers have IAD provisions or clauses, i.e., no more than 200 miles.

Article III(c) – requires the BOP to inform the inmate of the source and content of any detainer lodged. Notice of Untried Indictment form (BP-S235) used to notify.

Written notice and request must come from the prisoner to the warden, commissioner of corrections, or other official having custody of him. Art III(b)

Function over form, must request disposition of case that is basis of detainer.

Form letters vs hand written. Must request final disposition of untried cases. Case titled “Demand for Speedy Disposition.” was not deemed a request for final disposition and denied. Tenn. v Springer.

BOP: Inmate Systems Management (ISM) Review; confirm existence of pending charges, send a Detainer Action Letter (DAL, BP-S394) to prosecuting jurisdiction, and resend within two weeks if no response is received.

BOP must notify via Certified Mail, Return Receipt

1. Clerk of the Court

2. Prosecuting Officer

3. IAD Compact Administrator, if one in receiving jurisdiction

4. Any other office that the ISM staff is reasonably made aware of that may assist the inmate in the

IAD process.

- All return receipts are to be kept by BOP with IAD paperwork

Procedures Continued Any request under IAD acts as a waiver of extradition rights, but only for those charges for

which he is being moved and may return.

ISM staff must contact the Attorney General’s office in both States if receiving state refuses to take custody of the inmate.

IAD not available for the inmate until the inmate arrives at the designated institution for service of sentence.

Inmate must complete the IAD Place of Imprisonment form (BP-S326) to request appointed counsel.

Failure to transport within 180 from BOP

ISM must correspond with prosecutor calling attention to the lapse of the 180 days

Must remind state that only they may authorize the removal of detainer

Notify of possible violation of IAD

All requests for sanctions against receiving state must be initiated by inmate.

Required BOP paperwork

Certificate of Inmate Status (BP-S238)

Offer to Deliver Temporary Custody (BP-S239)

Prosecutor’s Certification (BP-S565)

Challenges BOP will advise inmate to contact state authorities or attorney

Specifically state “The Bureau does not decide the validity of the detainer or violation of any IAD Provision.” (P5800.14)

“All detainers will remain in full force and effect unless and until the charges from the ‘receiving state’ are dismissed and/or the receiving state authorizes, in writing, the removal of the detainer.”

Returned early: BOP states that “If the inmate is returned to the Bureau before completion of all state court proceedings, the detainer will remain on file.”

Any violations of the IAD by Federal Court may be considered waived if not brought up prior to or concurrent with appeals. U.S. v. Boggs, 612 F.2d 991 (11th Cir. 1980)

All challenges for sanctions must be filed in court of receiving state.

Alabama v. Bozeman, 533 U.S. 146 (2001)

Michael Bozeman serving a federal sentence for drug crime in Marianna, Florida.

District Attorney of Covington County, Al, sought to have Bozeman arraigned and appointed counsel on charges with an existing detainer

Federal officials released Bozeman to County authorities, transported, spent one night in Covington County, arraigned and returned.

A month later, Bozeman was returned to Covington-motion to dismiss

Convicted, affirmed, State Supreme Court reversed, Supreme Court affirmed the reversal.

Anti-Shuttling

Anti-Shuttling Provision

To confront and remedy the “lengthy history of problems between state governments when transferring prisoners facing charges in another jurisdiction.” U.S. v. Vaden, 2011 WL 5191901, *4 (N.D. Okla. 2011)(citing U.S. v. Bauro, 436 U.S. 340, 349-50 (1978)).

“If trial is not had on any indictment, information, or complaint contemplated hereby prior to the prisoner’s being returned to the original place of imprisonment pursuant to Article V(e) hereof, such indictment, information, or complaint shall not be of any further force or effect, and the court shall enter an order dismissing the same with prejudice.” Bozeman, at 149.

Bozeman Continued Alabama claimed that Article IV(e)’s basic purpose was to prevent shuttling that

would interrupt the prisoner’s rehabilitation and that this was a technical, harmless or de-minimus interruption.

Court found the language is clear in that the receiving state shall, or must, conclude the basis for the detainer before returning detainee and it must be within 120 days.

Court also found that mitigation of rehabilitation obstruction could be done in other ways.

The arguments by Alabama were policy arguments better issued to the legislatures.

State Charges dismissed based on Anti-Shuttling.

Does it Apply to My Case?

Is the prisoner serving a term of imprisonment?

Has a detainer been lodged against him?

Is the detainer based on an untried indictment, information, or complaint?

Has the prosecutor made a written request for temporary custody?

Has the prisoner made a written request for final disposition? (waiver under Uniform Criminal Extradition Act)

Was the prisoner transported within 180 days of f request?

Were all charges in receiving state finalized within 120 days of return?

Was the prisoner returned to the sending state prior to the conclusion of the receiving state charges?

Hypothetical June: Defendant is arrested in Cullman for assault, released on bond.

July: Defendant is arrested in Calhoun for car theft. Not released on bond. Bond in Cullman is revoked based on the new offense.

August: A Federal Writ is issued for felon in possession. Defendant remains in Calhoun County detention center.

Calhoun County Circuit Court contacts Marshals directly requesting permission to transport to Circuit Court. Marshals say NO.

Calhoun County Sheriffs transport defendant anyways, defendant pleads guilty to state car theft charges and is sentenced before being returned to Calhoun County detention center.

You find out a week later and confirm with the Marshals that they did not authorize the transport. What, if anything can you do?

Hypothetical

Defendant flies down from Chicago to visit family in Anniston.

Robs a drycleaners at gun point, locked the attendant up in a closet, acts like an employee, takes the money and steals a car.

Defendant is caught in car in Tennessee and charged with carjacking under federal statute in the Middle District of Tennessee, pleads guilty, sentenced and sent to Yazoo City Federal Detention Center, MS.

Filed IAD request for disposition on kidnapping and robbery charges in Alabama State court. BOP files all appropriate paperwork and notifications. State does not request or transport him within 180 days.

Motion to dismiss: Calhoun County District Attorney’s office did not understand the law, did not think it applied to them, and the State Judge did not want to issue a ruling on it for same reasons.

Only after contacting the State Attorney General’s office did court finally grant motion to dismiss. U.S. v. Bozeman.

Hypothetical

Defendant is serving two year sentence in Indiana for drug offenses.

Defendant is indicted for manufacturing Meth and endangerment to a child. Petitions for final disposition of new Federal charges.

Transported to Commonwealth of Kentucky for disposition.

Commonwealth courts issue an order dismissing state charges, having no affect on the Federal charges.

Detention center mistakenly interprets the State order and transports Defendant back to Indiana.

Federal courts issue another warrant/detainer and Defendant is transported back to Kentucky for Federal case.

Defendant files a motion to dismiss based on IAD Anti-shuttling provision violation. Sustained. Scroggins v. Commonwealth.

Hypothetical Defendant is involved in two car thefts here in the Northern District of Alabama.

Charged in Federal court with one. Pleads guilty, sentenced, and designated/placed in Talladega Detention Center.

Defendant is later charged with armed robbery in second incident in Alabama State court.

Can Defendant file for final Disposition of state case even though he is already located in the State of Alabama, in a Federal Detention Center?

Yes. The Federal Government would be considered the “Sending State” and so long as all BOP procedures are followed, i.e., notified, files appropriate forms, notification is sent, then any violation of the process by the state will result in the second indictment in state court to be dismissed.

The Top Ten questions about the IAD that you can now answer!

1. What is the IAD?

2. Why was it passed?

3. What is a Detainer and how does it apply to IAD?

4. Why should I care?

5. Where is speedy trial provision?

6. What is the remedy for violation?

7. Cant the speedy trial times be extended or tolled?

8. What is Anti-Shuttling?

9. Can you waive or forfeit rights?

10. How can I tell if IDA applies to my case?

THE END