United States v. Asfour
16-6231
| 10th Cir. | Dec 8, 2017Background
- On Jan 30, 2015, Oklahoma Highway Patrol stopped two vehicles; drugs and firearms were found in Saoud’s car and Defendant Asfour was arrested and jailed.
- ATF Special Agent Ward and OHP Trooper Dlugokinski (assigned to a DEA task force) assisted; officers interviewed suspects and discussed potential federal charges and penalties.
- Oklahoma charged Asfour on multiple state counts on Feb 4; preliminary hearing was continued multiple times (many continuances were agreed to by defense or requested by defense).
- Nine months after the traffic stop, federal indictment was returned; state charges were dismissed shortly afterward.
- Asfour moved to dismiss the federal indictment under the Speedy Trial Act, arguing the state arrest was a ruse to evade the Act’s 30‑day filing requirement. The district court denied the motion; Asfour pleaded guilty (reserving appeal) and was sentenced.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a state arrest can trigger the Speedy Trial Act under a "ruse" exception | Asfour: state custody was used as a ruse to hold him for federal prosecution, so §3161(b) clock should start at arrest | Government: no collusion; state proceedings were bona fide and delays were largely consensual | Court: Assuming ruse exception applies to state arrests, Asfour failed to prove primary purpose of detention was to hold him for federal prosecution; denial affirmed |
| Whether evidence of federal involvement and warnings shows collusion | Asfour: federal agents participated in investigation and officers warned of federal penalties to pressure cooperation, implying collusion | Government: interagency cooperation and tactical warnings do not establish a scheme to evade Speedy Trial Act | Court: Cooperation and use of federal leverage for cooperation are insufficient; district court credited investigators' explanation |
| Whether delay in state proceedings indicates improper purpose | Asfour: substantial delays in preliminary hearing support inference of intentional stalling for federal use | Government: most continuances were agreed to or requested by defense; no evidence of intentional stalling | Court: delays did not show federal interference or bad faith; insufficient to trigger ruse exception |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Pasillas-Castanon, 525 F.3d 994 (10th Cir. 2008) (adopts ruse exception for civil detentions in immigration context; sets heavy burden to show detention’s primary purpose was future federal prosecution)
- United States v. Abdush-Shakur, 465 F.3d 458 (10th Cir. 2006) (standard of review for Speedy Trial Act dismissal is abuse of discretion with de novo legal review)
- United States v. De La Pena-Juarez, 214 F.3d 594 (5th Cir. 2000) (general rule that Speedy Trial Act arrest occurs when taken into federal custody; discusses ruse exception)
- United States v. Benitez, 34 F.3d 1489 (9th Cir. 1994) (state detention can trigger Speedy Trial Act where detention is used solely to hold defendant for federal prosecution)
- United States v. Woolfolk, 399 F.3d 590 (4th Cir. 2005) (state arrests may fall under the Act if government knowingly holds an individual via state authorities solely to answer federal charges)
- United States v. Garcia-Echaverria, 374 F.3d 440 (6th Cir. 2004) (discusses ruse exception in immigration context; requires collusion to apply)
- United States v. Dyer, 325 F.3d 464 (3d Cir. 2003) (describes ruse exception in immigration context)
- United States v. Pena-Carrillo, 46 F.3d 879 (9th Cir. 1995) (ruse exception explained in immigration detention cases)