United States v. Broncheau
759 F. Supp. 2d 682
| E.D.N.C. | 2010Background
- respondents are former federal prisoners subject to 18 U.S.C. § 4248 sexually dangerous person certifications under the Adam Walsh Act
- certifications stayed their release and sought indefinite commitment after hearings
- certifications based on BOP Certification Review Panel statements; some rely on old convictions rather than recent conduct
- district court in E.D. North Carolina consolidates nine cases with similar issues
- Supreme Court Comstock later upheld congressional authority to commit, but did not decide equal protection or due process scope for § 4248; Timms v. Johns raised additional due process concerns
- court ultimately grants respondents’ motions to dismiss and directs release to commence supervised release within 30 days
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of §4248(C) due process | Broncheau et al. claim due process/ equal protection violations | Government argues §4248 fits within proper commitment scheme and Comstock authorizes authority | Motions to dismiss granted; §4248 unconstitutional as applied |
| Adequacy of notice and hearings under §4248 | Respondents lacked meaningful notice of basis for commitment | Section 4241 governs initial hearing and provides notice and evaluation | Notice and procedures inadequate; due process violated |
| Relation of §4248 to §4241 and supervised release | Certifications can proceed during supervised release without regard to §4241 | Certifications must use §4241 pathway while supervised release remains in effect | Section 4241 pathway governs initiation; §4248 cannot be used while supervised release remains |
| Effect on judgments and separation of powers | Certifications circumvent court judgments and modify sentences administratively | Statutory framework permits federal commitment mechanisms independent of sentence modification | Certifications improperly circumvent judgments; invalid as applied |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Comstock, 130 S. Ct. 1949 (2010) (upheld congressional authority to commit sexually dangerous individuals under Necessary and Proper Clause)
- Timms v. Johns, 700 F. Supp. 2d 764 (E.D.N.C. 2010) (raised due process concerns under §4248; discussed civil vs. criminal categorization)
- United States v. Shields, 522 F. Supp. 2d 317 (D. Mass. 2007) (probable-cause hearing within a reasonable time under §4248)
- United States v. Baker, 807 F.2d 1315 (6th Cir. 1986) (noting due-process requirements for notice in proceedings analogous to §4246)
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) (prisoner rights and due process in confinement contexts)
- Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 357 (1997) (framework for civil commitment and reasonable time for evaluation)