732 F.3d 6
1st Cir.2013Background
- August 6, 2011, State arrest of Lewis on Maine charges left him in State custody for which he posted no bail.
- August 26, 2011, federal complaint filed and arrest warrant issued for federal felon-in-possession charge; federal detainer lodged August 29, 2011.
- State dismissed all charges on August 29, 2011, but Cumberland County Jail did not receive or act on this dismissal for weeks.
- September 26–27, 2011, interactions between State and federal prosecutors confirming dismissal status; jail not informed of dismissal.
- October 3, 2011, State court notified and jail informed; United States Marshals arrested Lewis and he appeared in federal court; October 26, 2011, indictment filed in federal court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Speedy Trial Act clock started on August 29, 2011. | Lewis argued detainer plus state dismissal began federal arrest. | Government contends clock began October 3, 2011, when federal custody occurred. | Clock did not begin August 29; began October 3, 2011. |
| Whether a federal detainer can constitute a federal arrest or serve as the clock’s trigger. | Detainer equivalent to arrest, starting thirty-day clock. | Detainer is not an arrest; state custody persists. | Detainer not the triggering event; not a federal arrest. |
| Whether a knowledge/should have known test should govern the clock start. | Clock should start when government knew state detention due to federal detainer. | No such knowledge-based trigger exists in the statute. | No knowledge test; bright-line rule controls. |
| Whether the government’s alleged failure to notify of the detainer warrants sanctions. | Failure to notify merits sanctions short of dismissal. | Issue waived; only dismissal considered; sanctions denied. | Waived; no sanctions ordered. |
| Whether the detainer could be the functional equivalent of an arrest. | Detainer functions as federal arrest after state charges dismissed. | Detainer directs custodian, not arrest of defendant; not trigger. | Functional-equivalent argument rejected under Kelly.” |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Kelly, 661 F.3d 682 (1st Cir. 2011) (detainer not an arrest or summons; detainers do not trigger §3161(b))
- United States v. Hood, 469 F.3d 7 (1st Cir. 2006) (bright-line rules governing Speedy Trial Act)
- United States v. Iaquinta, 674 F.2d 260 (4th Cir. 1982) (mechanical, expeditious prosecution timelines)
- United States v. Shahryar, 719 F.2d 1522 (11th Cir. 1983) (explains strict timing under Speedy Trial Act)
- United States v. Tinklenberg, 131 S. Ct. 2007 (2011) (Supreme Court on exclusion of delays under §3161(h)(1))
- United States v. Woolfolk, 399 F.3d 590 (4th Cir. 2005) (recognizes a knowledge-based trigger in some circuits)
- United States v. Copley, 774 F.2d 728 (6th Cir. 1985) (detainers vs. arrest; custody context)
- Carchman v. Nash, 473 U.S. 716 (1985) (detainers and custody interplay in pretrial context)
- United States v. Taylor, 814 F.2d 172 (5th Cir. 1987) (detentions during state custody context)