*1 v. MAURO UNITED STATES et al. May Argued February 27, 23, 1978* 1978 Decided 76-1596.
No. Ford, United States also on certiorari * Together No. v. the same court. *3 BRENNAN, Court, in which opinion of the J., delivered the White, joined. JJ., Stevens, and Powell, Blackmun, Marshall,
Stewart, 76-1596 judgment in No. concurring in opinion J., filed an Rehnquist, 365. J., joined, post, p. Burger, C. dissenting 77-52, in which in No. and Frey argued Solicitor General the cause for the Deputy him on briefs were both cases. With States Civiletti, McCree, Attorney Solicitor Assistant General General Feit, III, H. Farr Jerome M. and Elliott Schulder. Bartow Ross filed brief for re- argued Kevin G. the cause and vice, David J. Gottlieb hac in No. 76-1596. respondents, pro vice, in respondent, pro hac No. 77-52. argued the cause E. him on the brief were William Hellerstein With Bamberger. Phylis Skloot opinion of the Court. Justice White delivered
Mr. on De In the Interstate Congress enacted join (1976 ed.), 1395-1398 pp. C. Act, App., tainers U. S. parties of Columbia as ing the United and the District ,1 The (Agreement) Agreement on Detainers to the Interstate States, which has also been enacted Agreement, orderly disposi encourage expeditious “to designed and deter [outstanding against prisoner] charges .. . tion based any all detainers status of proper mination I. complaints.” informations, indictments, on untried may obtain member by which a procedures prescribes It jurisdic member incarcerated another for trial a speedy dis may demand tion and which another him in pending against charges position of certain provisions however, case, In either jurisdiction. *4 filed with “detainer” only when a triggered Agreement are (receiving) by another State (sending) State the custodial to obtain prisoner; the pending charges untried having eight sections. Detainers Act contains on 1 The Interstate and by United States adopted Agreement forth the Section sets be Agreement will of the jurisdictions. Provisions by member other 2 of numbers, forth in as set original § article their referred to herein Congress. the enactment file an must also receiving custody,
temporary The present sending State. with the “request” appropriate under obligations United States’ scope concern the cases whether a question pose the particular in and Agreement, used prosequendum, corpus ad habeas writ of prisoners, court of state in federal presence secure to States “request” within or a a “detainer” either may considered Agreement. meaning I
A in- were Fusco, Mauro in Respondents No. District the United contempt in criminal dicted 3, November New York the Eastern Court District serv- men were indictments, both their time of At the 1975.2 On facilities.3 Yprk correctional New at sentences ing state separate writs issued District Court 5, 1975, the November the wardens prosequendum,\directing corpus ad produce to were incarcerated Fusco Mauro and prisons where Mauro 19,1975. November District Court on them before Court on Novem- District in arraigned were and Fusco of not pleas they both entered which time 1975, at 24, ber retained in were they arraignment, Following their guilty. Center Correctional custody Metropolitan at federal City. New York appeared before again respondents 1975,
On December a trial setting purpose time for Court, this the District noting established, court, been trial had After dates date. refusal of Mauro charges out of contempt arose The criminal testify federal immunity, before a despite judicial grant of Fusco, drug the federal laws. grand jury investigating violations imprisonment at years life three serving a sentence of was Mauro serving a sen Facility, Y., Fusco Auburn, N. Correctional Facility imprisonment Correctional year at the Clinton tence of one life Dannemora, N. Y. *5 the overcrowded conditions Metropolitan at the federal Cor- rectional directed Center, Mauro and Fusco be returned respective to their prisons state until shortly before their trials. April On Mauro was 26, 1976, again from removed state prison and taken before District pursuant Court ato writ corpus habeas prosequendum, ad as was April Fusco on 1976. Prior to these respondents appearances, had moved for dismissal of their indictments on ground that the United States had violated Art. IY (e) by returning custody them to state without first trying them on the federal indictment.4 The granted District Court their motions to dismiss the indictments, finding that governed their removal from custody by state means of the writs of habeas corpus ad prosequendum the Government had violated the provisions of Art. IV (e).
On appeal a divided panel of the of Appeals Court for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissals of respondents’ indict ments. 2dF. 588 (1976). It held that a “writ of habeas corpus is a detainer entitling the state protection inmate to the provided in Article IV Agree [of and specifically ment] to a trial before his return to the state (footnote Id., institution.” at 592 omitted). To hold that a writ of ad prosequendum was not a detainer meaning within the of the Agreement, reasoned the court, permit would the United States to circumvent obligations its under the Agreement.
B Respondent in No. 77-52, Ford, in Chicago was arrested on October on 11, 1973, two federal warrants.5 Shortly after his (e) requires Article IV dismissal of the indictment who receiving obtained if he original place is returned to his imprisonment without first being tried the indictment underlying request by the detainer and custody which was secured. infra, See at 352-353. 5 One of the warrants, issued in York, the Southern District of New *6 for extradi- he was turned over to Illinois authorities arrest, charges. state older, on unrelated tion Massachusetts custody requested Ford authorities, in the of the Illinois While robbery by means speedy charge trial on the federal bank Attorney for the Southern letters sent to the United States District Court for District of New York and the States United Massachusetts, that District.6 After he was transferred to aas federal officials federal bank warrant lodged robbery against prison detainer him with the state authorities. Following charges, on Massachusetts Ford's conviction an hi United Court was filed States District indictment charging for Ford York, the Southern of New District robbery aggravated robbery. April 1, 1974, bank On bank produced arraignment he from for before was Massachusetts pursuant District Court to writ 1974. Be- 25, issued court on March proceedings represented by cause Ford was counsel, not adjourned April pleaded were until he 15, at which time guilty May superseding 28, to a Trial set for indictment.7 was 1974.
The trial did not until September 2, commence, however, 1975, having postponed separate been five occasions either request at the or on own Government the court's initia- robbery; other, Massachusetts, for bank issued in the District was flight. charge eventually for unlawful The latter was dismissed. letters, custody In these Ford stated that he in the was state Illinois, in awaiting officials extradition to Massachusetts to stand trial -¿he escape. requested Attorney He the court and robbery take charge against bringing action on the federal him, bank either charge. Ford, him to dropping request, trial or This said was based right speedy on his constitutional to a trial. superseding 3, April indictment filed Ford on 1974. was charged It Flynn robbery him and one James bank R. with the same charged had been in the use first indictment and also with firearm in the robbery, transportation commission of a bank interstate of a vehicle, conspiracy stolen to commit the above offenses. period
tive.8 During awaiting while he was his federal trial, prison; Ford was incarcerated in the state Massachusetts requested permission he had and received to return there On preparation 4, order facilitate for trial. November postpone motion to response to the Government’s time, in the Court trial for a third Ford moved District he had been ground of his indictment on the the dismissal motion, In of his speedy support to a trial.9 right denied his privileges being furlough denied at alleged he that he detainer remained a result of the federal prison state *7 the indictment His motion to dismiss him. lodged against was denied. presence secured Ford’s 1975, the Government August 8,
On by means prison from Massachusetts authorities trial issued the Dis- ad corpus prosequendum, of of habeas a writ moved again his Ford beginning trial, At the of trict Court. speedy on of the indictment unsuccessfully for a dismissal on guilty of in verdicts grounds. jury His trial resulted trial all counts.
8 adjourn for a to the trial May 17, moved 1974, On the Government Flynn apprehended, days could period or until codefendant of 90 was granted, and the trial was occurred first. The motion whichever postponement from 21, resulted August 1974. The second rescheduled for August 1974; was judge trial to different reassignment of the ease a 1, however, the Gov 18, On November reset for November 1974. then apprehend 90-day adjournment in order to requested an additional ernment motion, over Ford’s Flynn. granted The District Court Government’s February 18, 1975. Because of objections, a new trial date and set 18, February trial on lengthy Judge engaged in a stock-fraud District was The for June 1975. postponed; rescheduled again it was the trial was 2, 1975, because of September time, until postponed for a final trial was program “crash” for the undertake a decision to District Court’s pending civil cases. disposition rights he been his to had denied his Ford contended In motion by the Constitution and the guaranteed to him Federal speedy trial a as of New District York. Rules of Southern Circuit, Second Appeals for the Court of to the appeal On should indictment that his things, among other argued, Ford tried was not he prejudice because with dismissed have been District in the Southern initial arrival days of his within Agreement,10 (c) IY in violation Art. York, of New being first without prison state to he was returned and because The (e). Art. IY in violation charges, federal tried con- Ford’s with agreed dissenting, judge one panel,11 as a required was indictment that dismissal tention speedy with the comply to failure Government’s result (1977). (c).12 550 F. 2d Art. IV provisions trial writ of of whether regardless that, court reasoned obtain court by a federal issued prosequendum provisions trigger the sufficient it-self state such situations clearly governs Agreement, filed with is first a federal detainer Ford’s, in which prison- used to secure is then the writ authorities state of the Court In the view court. in federal presence er’s utilized corpus ad of habeas the writ Appeals, tem- request for “written court was to federal bring Ford meaning of availability” within custody or porary applica- Having concluded that (a). *8 violated, (c) had been of provisions that the ble for the remanded dismissal reversed and Appeals of the Court (c) by Art. V required as prejudice, indictment of Ford’s Agreement.13 10 infra, (c), at 352. see text of Art. IV For the 11 Mansfield, by Judge written Appeals was opinion Court of for the The Mauro and disposition of the Second Circuit’s from the had who dissented Fusco cases. 12 his claim that, Ford waived while had Appeals held of The Court had not prison, he to (e) by requesting the return state Art. IV under prompt on repeatedly insisted a (c) claim, he had for Art. IV waived his trial. 13 infra, at 353. See
349 c of Courts Federal the among conflict is a there Because cases in these certiorari15 granted we issue,14 on the Appeals writs of use the governs Agreement the whether consider States United the by prosequendum ad corpus habeas of such a that hold we 76-1596 In No. prisoners. state obtain directing authorities, to state court federal by a issued writ charges, criminal on trial for of state production Agreement of meaning within a detainer is not In Agreement. of application trigger not does thus by the is bound States the United we hold 77-52 No. a detainer filing by its provisions it activates when means custody his obtains and then a state prosequendum. ad corpus of habeas writ of a
II á when back date origins of The issued on Detainers16 Committee the Joint known group of detain- use from the arising problems concerning tire report of guidance for principles aims five expressing ers and Circuit, Court 14 the Second Appeals to the Court addition In that writ held Circuit Third Appeals Agreement. meaning of the within is a detainer prosequendum ad pending, cert. (en banc), (1977) 227 Sorrell, 2d 562 F. States v. United considered have Appeals Courts other 77-593. No. does writ an concluded question have Ridgeway United v. Agreement. application trigger the itself 77-5252; United pending, No. 1977), cert. (CA6 2d 357 States, F. 558 77-206; No. pending, 1977), cert. (CA1 2d 912 Kenaan, 557 F. v. States No. pending, 1977), cert. (CA5 2d 1168 Scallion, 548 F. v. 76-6559. (1977). U. S. following from representatives up of made committee This Association, Administrators Compact Probation Parole organizations: Com Conference General, National Attorneys Association National Association, and Prison Laws, American Uniform missioners *9 Association. Bar American Law on Criminal Section prosecuting prison authorities, and officials, parole authori- ties. These guiding principles, which later as served underpinnings of the Agreement, were as follows:
“1. Every effort should be made to accomplish the disposition of detainers as promptly possible.
“2. There should be assurance that any prisoner re- leased to stand trial in another jurisdiction will be re- turned to the institution from which he was released.
“3. Prison parole authorities should take prompt action to settle detainers which have been filed them.
“4. No prisoner should penalized because of a de- tainer pending against him unless thorough investiga- tion of the detainer has been made and it has been found valid.
“5. All jurisdictions should observe the principles of interstate comity the settlement of detainers, and each should bear its own proper burden of expenses and effort involved disposing of the charges settling detainers.” Bennett, The Last Full Ounce, 23 Fed. Prob. 20, 22 (June 1959).
The Joint Committee on Detainers was later reconstituted under the auspices of the Council of State Governments. Then known as the Committee on Detainers and Sentencing and Release of Persons Accused Multiple Offenses, held meetings in 1955 and 1956, which resulted in development approval of several proposals concerning detainers. Among the proposals was a draft version of Agreement. In April 1956 this proposal was reviewed and approved by a conference jointly sponsored by the American Correctional Association, the Council of State Governments, the National Probation and Parole Association, and the New York Joint Legislative Committee on Interstate Cooperation.17 Follow- 17Among persons the 60 in attendance at conference repre were sentatives of the United States Department of Justice.
351 conference, by this the the endorsement ing Suggested its it within included Governments of State Council 1957. for Program Legislation State United States by the adopted form in the Agreement, The upon findings forth the sets jurisdictions, member other and *11 prisoner of a pursuant IV. (c) Article IV states that respect any proceeding
“[i]n made possible this ar- ticle, trial shall be commenced within one hundred and twenty days of the arrival of prisoner the in the receiv- ing State, good but for cause shown open court, the prisoner or his counsel being present, the having court jurisdiction of the may grant matter any necessary or rea- sonable continuance.”
And Art. (e) IV requires the receiving try State to the prisoner on the outstanding charge before him returning to the State in which he previously was imprisoned:
“If trial is any not had on indictment, or information, complaint contemplated hereby prior prisoner’s to the being returned original to the place imprisonment pur- suant to article V hereof, (e) such indictment, informa- (a) Article IV states: “The appropriate jurisdiction officer of the in which an untried indict- ment, information, complaint or is pending shall be entitled to have a prisoner against whom he lodged has and detainer who is serving a term imprisonment any party State made available in accordance with (a) article upon V presentation hereof request of a written for tem- porary custody availability or appropriate to the authorities of State the in which the Provided, incarcerated: having That the court jurisdiction of indictment, such information, complaint or duly shall have approved, recorded, request: and 'provided transmitted further, the And That period there be a thirty days shall receipt appro- after the priate request authorities before honored, the period within which Governor of sending may disapprove request temporary custody or availability, upon either his own upon motion or motion of prisoner.” or force further any not be shall complaint or
tion, dismissing an order enter shall court effect, and prejudice.” with same informa- “indictment, similarly provides (c)Y
Article been detainer of which basis complaint tion, brought is not if the be dismissed shall lodged” (c). in Art. specified period within the trial Ill into entered into law Congress enacted Columbia District and the on behalf it opposition. apparent no relatively little discussion (1970). 38840-38842 Cong. Rec. See Con- 90th in the introduced previously been had legislation occasion, on that General; Attorney request at gress approve failed had Senate but the House, passed had Congress, 91st in the again introduced was When it it. House in both noted legislation *12 for need Reports: Senate committee advised has Attorney General
“The him is against lodged detainer had a who custody inis He action. by such disadvantaged seriously pre- or to witnesses to seek position in no therefore cus- close in kept often must He his defense. serve assignments. work desirable ineligible tody and a prisoner filed are detainers when more, isWhat opportunities institutional interest loses sometimes he knowing what without sentence his serve must he because ever, if when, or him, lie before may sentences additional the education employ position be in will he 91-1018, No. Rep. R.H. developing.” may be he skills (1970). 3 p. No. Rep. (1970); S. 3p. Congress that when argues vigorously now Government became United States law, the into enacted party to the Agreement only in its capacity as a “sending State.” It contends that “Congress intended the United States to participate in the Agreement only purposes of allowing states readily more to obtain federal prisoners and allowing such prisoners to seek trial on outstanding detainers lodged against them with their federal custodian.” Brief for United States in p. No. 77-52, 16. Thus, argues, the Agree- ment has no relevance to present cases, for here the Fed- eral Government was the recipient of prisoners. state We have considered the grounds offered Government support of this contention and conclude, as have all of the Courts of Appeals that have considered the question,20 that the United States is a party to as both a send- ing and a receiving State.
As even the Government concedes, Agreement as enacted by Congress expressly includes within the definition of “State”21 and. “Receiving defines State” as “the State in which trial is to be had on indict- an ment, information, complaint pursuant to article III or article hereof.” II (c). The gives statute itself no indication that the United States is to be exempted from the category of receiving States. To the contrary, Art. VIII states that agreement “[t]his shall into enter force and full effect as to a party State when such State has enacted the same into law” (emphasis added).22 20In addition to the Court Appeals for the Circuit, Second following Courts Appeals rejected have argument Government’s only it is a sending State: the Third Circuit in United States v. Sorrell, 562 2d, F. 7; at 232 n. the First in United Circuit Kenaan, States v. 2d, F. at 6; 915 n. and the Fifth Circuit in United Scallion, States v. *13 2d, 548 F. at 1174. 21Under Agreement the “State” means “a of the States; United the United States America; of territory or possession of the United States; the Columbia; District of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.” (a). Art. II 22Both Reports Committee express made reference to the fact that the
355 no further provides exists history that legislative brief as the true, It is contention. the Government’s support on the comment of the most that out, points Government encountered problems referred legislation proposed indica- no there but prisoners, federal obtaining States in the participation States’ United the that tion whatsoever for ex- Hruska, Senator one. limited be a towas Agreement of the floor the Agreement of the in favor spoke ample, saying: Senate, and States United bill this of enactment “By this signatories become would of Columbia
District 28 States. adopted been already which agreement that insure can today we measure this By approving sys- vitally needed this part of become will States United disposition rules uniform simplified tem prisoners.” exchange and the charges criminal pending (1970). 38840 Rec. Cong. be- a distinction Congress drew else anyone he nor Neither in the participation States’ United extent tween observa- States, an member other Agreement Government Federal had the expect would one tion State. sending only a as Agreement into entered that, argument Government’s by the persuaded we Nor are means efficient already had an States United because 'prosequen- writ obtaining prisoners —the United join intended have not could dum, Congress — per States Although receiving State. aas entry into its from much as gain did haps remains fact States,23 member other some did H. R. See passage. upon effect full force into enter would (1970). 91-1356, p. Rep. No. (1970); S. 91-1018, p. Rep. No. by which States means several were there Agreement, Prior to was which none of jurisdictions, from other prisoners obtain could formal the use method traditional satisfactory. The entirely by the request for required a This proceedings. extradition *14 Congress did enact Agreement into law its entirety, placed no qualification upon the membership of the United States. The reference in the Reports Committee to the recom mendation of the Attorney General, supra, see 353, at indicates that Congress was motivated, only by the desire aid States in obtaining federal prisoners, but also the desire to problems alleviate the encountered by prisoners prison systems as a result the lodging of detainers. There is no reason to assume that Congress any less concerned about the effects of federal detainers against filed prisoners state than it was about state detainers filed against prison federal ers. While the argues Government that writ habeas cor pus ad prosequendum leads to none problems of the about which the drafters of Agreement were we concerned, thinh argument that this is more properly addressed question to the whether such a writ constitutes a detainer for purposes of the Agreement, which we discuss below.24 Governor of receiving State. It was sent to the Governor of the custody prisoner, had. of the permitted and he was to investi- gate the situation to determine if the should be surrendered. If the agreed Governor extradition, to the he issued an arrest warrant against prisoner, who was permitted then challenge legality his arrest. Rather going through than this procedure, formal some States entered special into controlling contracts prisoners. the transfer of The effort arriving involved in at contract, such a however, thought was often outweigh the benefit simplified procedures unless there were fre- quent prisoner transfers between two States. problems Because of with both of methods, these law enforcement authorities developed practice the informal filing detainers .prisoners; rather seeking than transfer, immediate merely the State would notify custody the State having that he was at wanted the completion of his practice sentence. This problems, led to various discussed infra, text and n. sought to overcome. provided The also simple States with a from, efficient obtaining prisoners means of other States. subsequent congressional administrative and actions cited Government do not convince us that the United States was meant to be
A *15 C. by 28 U. S. authorized are district courts United States included expressly corpus; of habeas grant writs (a) 2241 to § a writ when such issue to power authority is the this within for testify or to into court a necessary bring to is it in examined previously (5). This Court (c) 2241 § trial. prose- ad corpus writ of habeas history of the the detail great 1 Judiciary Act, first 14 of the § that observing quendum, writs to issue States the United courts of authorized 81, Stat. 614 611, States, 364 U. S. v. United corpus. Carbo habeas of courts the state that expressly 14 Although did not (1961). § opinion in an Court the writs, prosequendum ad could issue Bollman, 4 Cranch Ex parte Marshall, Chief Justice by Mr. being a as corpus” “habeas words interpreted the (1807), 75 pris- a remove “necessary to the writ including term generic jurisdiction proper in him the prosecute in order oner Carbo, supra, at was committed.” offense the wherein Bollman, parte Ex of time the omitted). Since (emphasis opinion, Department’s then Justice the sending only a State. Neither under the State receiving not a is United now, that States Report (in draft Congress a Committee subsequent of a the statement nor not limit enacted) did that concerning never a bill prosequendum corpus ad writ of habeas scope applicability Agreement. Nor wording clear departing from our warrants 1974, C.S. 18 U. Speedy Act of subsequently Trial enacted we view do United States’ with the being inconsistent (1976 ed.), as seq. et §3161 of different sets which two in In receiving situations State. as status may simply stringent limitation more prescribed, are limitations time currently pending bills that it irrelevant Finally, we deem applied. be 6869, 95th (1977); H. R. Cong., Sess., 1st 1437, 95th Congress, § S. participation United States’ limit (1977), Sess., would Cong., 1st § Agreement. Ill only proceedings under receiving State aas position contrary the Government’s a view demonstrates action That purposes; receiving no State be a should the United States confirming conclusion may be read furthermore, purposes. receiving for all currently statutory authority of federal courts to issue writs corpus to secure the presence, purposes trial, defendants in criminal in- federal cases, cluding defendants then in custody, state has never been doubted. In authority 1948 this explicit was made in, the enactment of 28 U. S. C. 1961 the § Court held authority this was not limited the territorial Carbo, boundaries of the court. supra. federal district role functioning ad prosequendum writ rooted are and they bear history, typical little resemblance to the de- tainer which provisions activates Agreement.
Unlike a of habeas ad prosequendum writ issued a federal district court, may lodged a detainer against a prisoner on the prosecutor initiative or law enforcement *16 officer.25 Rather than requiring the presence immediate the prisoner, merely a detainer puts the officials of the institu- prisoner tion which is incarcerated notice that prisoner is jurisdiction wanted in another for upon trial his from prison. release Further action must by be taken receiving State in order to prisoner. obtain the Before was it clear made that a prosecuting authority is not relieved of its obligation provide a speedy defendant a trial just because he custody is in elsewhere, see Smith Hooey, 393 v. U. 374 S. 25 possibly resulting Problems judicial from this lack of supervision have by been described Appeals the Court of for the Fourth Circuit: “Detainers, informal aides in interstate and intrastate criminal [sic] administration, produce very often serious adverse side-effects. The informality difficulty. Requests is one source of the imprisoning to an jurisdiction person upon to detain a his jurisdiction release so that another may prosecute may or incarcerate him groundlessly, filed in bad even faith, suspected by appellant in this case. The accusation in a proved; need judicial detainer not be no issuing officer is involved in a happens, detainer. As often the result of the charge then unestablished upon which the detainer in this case rested was that the detainee was seriously hampered quest parole in his for a or commutation.” Pitts v. North Carolina, 182, (1968) (footnote 2d omitted). F. against pris- lodged to remain were allowed detainers
(1969), duration for the often quite lengthy periods time, for oners sentence. prisoner's of a
B word of the no definition contains itself Agreement The explain however, Reports, House and Senate “detainer.” “ institution filed with is notification detainer that [a] he is advising that sentence, serving a is which jurisdic in another charges criminal pending wanted face 91- Rep. No. (1970); S. 91-1018, p. 2 Rep. No. H. R. tion.” Second Appeals the Court While p. (1970). 1356, in enough to is broad definition that concluded this Circuit writ scope federal its within clude drafters by the expressed the concerns prosequendum, demonstrate enacted Congress that intended. not so was “detainer” the word the Coun- Agreement, adoption recommending the In caused problems outlined some Governments cil State It address. designed to was detainers in [their] “thwarted were administrators prison noted who inmate t]he rehabilitation [because toward effort[s] apprehension anxiety and him filled a detainer program.” training to a respond does not frequently Legislation Suggested Governments, of State Council Furthermore, (1956). p. 74 Program many advantage of to take ability deprived often *17 merely be- rehabilitation, aimed at programs prison’s of the problem This against him. lodged a detainer was there cause Prisons, Bureau Federal Director by the noted day when he “remember [ed] that in 1959 stated who automatically guaranteed detainer a presence training and custody and denied close held in be inmate would farm, as the such situations, relaxed in more experiences work treating resource a valuable represent, frequently which Last Bennett, progress.” testing their prisoners Full Ounce, 23 Fed. (June Prob. 1959). The Council of State Governments pointed also out that the existence of in, presented detainers problems sentencing; when detainers had previously been filed against the defendant, the sentenc- ing judge would give hesitate to as long a sentence as he thought might otherwise be indicated, being there a possi- bility that the defendant would be required to serve subsequent sentences. The Council “proper stated that sen- as tencing, well proper as correctional possie is not treatment, ble until system the detainer is modified.” Council of State Governments, supra, at 74. Similar expressed concerns were by the Attorney General in his Congress. recommendation to See supra, at 353.
The adverse effects detainers prompted drafting and enactment of part are thus for the most the consequence of the lengthy duration detainers. Because a detainer remains lodged against any without action being taken on it, he is denied certain privileges within the prison, and rehabilitation may efforts For frustrated. these reasons the stated purpose of is “to encourage expeditious disposition orderly of [out standing] charges and determination proper status any and all detainers based on untried indictments, informa tions, or complaints.” IArt. (emphasis added).
Because writs of corpus habeas ad prosequendum issued a federal court pursuant the express authority of federal statute are immediately executed, Agree- enactment ment was not necessary to achieve their expeditious disposi- tion. Furthermore, noted above, prose- the issuance quendum writs courts federal long dating history, back to the first Judiciary Act. We can therefore assume that Congress was well aware of the use of such by writs Federal Government prisoners obtain state when it used the word “detainer,” it something meant quite differ- ent from a writ of ad prosequendum. Contrary *18 in No. Appeals of of the Court the
to contention writs these including as “detainer” construe necessary to not is duties its evading from States keep the in order state obtains the United When Agreement. the under prosequen- ad corpus habeas of of a writ by means prisoners do to eliminate seeks Agreement the that problems dum, the cir- sense in no is the Government accordingly, arise;26 not there- We writ. of the by means Agreement cumventing the prosequendum ad corpus habeas of writ that a conclude fore Agreement. of the purposes for not a detainer filed never Government the 76-1596 No. Because never Fusco, Mauro against detainer bound never United States was applicable became in affirm- erred therefore Appeals The Court provisions. its respondents. indictments dismissal ing the V the rea Agreement and purposes analysis of the Our the Gov reject leads us to Congress adoption for its sons writ habeas 77-52 that in No. argument ernment’s request a “written considered may not of Art. IV meaning within custody” temporary detainer lodges a Government Federal Once the Agreement. requirement that that Art. IV’s concluded Appeals The Court sending State demonstrates he is returned to tried before prisoner be and forth back shuttled not be prisoners a concern noted, is one court problem, the This institutions. penal between prosequendum as well corpus ad of writs of the use arises from however, Mansfield, Judge agree with We from detainers. returned prisoner were that, if provision was of this concern real receiving charges tine disposition prior to sending State remain in effect him would lodged against previously State, the detainer course, problems, would These problems. attendant all its had been and the writ alone lodged been never had if a arise detainer its course would have run the writ prisoner, remove the used to state prisoner’s return upon operative longer be no would custody.
against prisoner prison a officials, Agreement state the by its express applicable terms becomes and the United States comply must provisions. with its And once a detainer has been the lodged, precipitated very prob the lems with which Agreement the concerned. Because is at that point policies underlying Agreement fully impli the the are cated, give unduly meaning we see no reason to an restrictive custody.” to the request temporary term “written for It presents prison matters not whether au the Government the thorities in sending piece paper State with a of labeled “request temporary custody” for or with a writ habeas corpus prosequendum ad in demanding prisoner’s presence federal day; court a certain either case the United States is able to obtain temporary custody prisoner. prisoner Because the detainer remains until lodged the underlying charges finally Agreement are re resolved, the quires disposition speed}'- that and that it be be obtained prisoner sending before the The fact is returned to the State. is the district court brought before way means of a writ of in no corpus prosequendum ad charges reduces the need for prompt disposition this underlying clearly In detainer. this situation it would permit obligations the United States to circumvent its under may to not prosequendum hold an ad writ custody.'27 be considered a written for request temporary points provisions The Government two to provision Speedy The admits that similar Trial Government referring request temporary custody properly supported Act “a to trial,” (1976 (j)(4) ed.), properly such 18 U. S. is C. §3161 interpreted prosequendum including an ad writ. Brief for United States p. difference, says, legislative No. 48 n. 35. The is that the history Speedy provisions Trial Act that its are to have broad shows applicability. argument Agreement, This fact on its overlooks the that the face, expression contains a similar Article IX intent. states “[t]his agreement liberally purposes.” shall be construed so as to effectuate its request” that “written demonstrate
which it contends argument neither writs; prosequendum include ad meant to under notes that First the Government is persuasive. request after the 30-day waiting period is be a (a) IV there sending State Governor during which presented Because request. State's may disapprove receiving is a federal-court of habeas writ Clause, the Supremacy contrary it would order, obey it. to refuse to permit argues, United States (a) does not of Art. unimpressed. proviso areWe *20 a dishonor such authority to augment the State’s purport it was clear, makes history provision writ. As the rights existing previously preserve no than to do more meant has If a State expand not to them.28 sending States, writ prosequendum authority dishonor an ad had never read could not provision court, then this by a federal issued the view we do not authority. Accordingly, providing as such of writs inclusion with being as inconsistent provision meaning of “writ- within the ad habeas requests.” ten re- speedy trial points out that also Government
The “pro- only to a applies by its terms (c) of Art. IV quirement prisoner When a . . . .” by this article possible made ceeding prose- an means before a district court brought is pro- subsequent argues, quendum the Government writ, United because the by Art. IY possible ceedings are not made long before in manner prisoners was able to obtain States accept the Gov- We do not Agreement. into the it entered 28 right to refuse to “a Reports note that Governor’s Committee Both Rep. preserved R. No. . . . H. a available make (1970) 2 91-1356, p. (emphasis added); Rep (1970) (emphasis No. S. p. 2 in provision discussed added). The Council of State Governments Governor’s, make the right to refuse to terms: similar “[A] of State Gov Council public grounds) is retained.” policy (on available 1957, p. (1956) Program for Suggested Legislation ernments, State added). (emphasis view rather we reading provision;
ernment’s narrow this within trial requiring commencement (c) Art. IV disposition initiates the days receiving whenever the against previously lodged charges underlying a detainer it has would of this section prisoner. Any reading other a state lodging gain advantages the Government allow assuming responsi- without prisoner29 detainer from an to arise such bilities that intended action.30 in 77-52 Appeals Court of No. agree we
Finally, invoke the respondent Ford’s failure to the District motions before specific speedy terms in his trial Gov- in a waiver of his claim that Court did not result record shows that from (c). The ernment violated Art. persistently requested that he he was arrested Ford time during that, quite argument oral made it clear Government prosequendum, corpus ad despite availability of writs of play great and considers them to makes use detainers They important Arg. 76-1596, p. 37. Tr. of an function. See Oral No. put prison officials on notice that Federal Govern serve to state though immediate charges pending against prisoner, even his ment prosecution may be released contemplated, and that he should not not be during being informed that notified. We were without the Government’s *21 5,000 prosequendum year approximately ad typical courts a federal issue 3,000 of in cases in which a detainer has writs and that about those are prisoner. Arg. in previously lodged against been Tr. of Oral No. 77-52, p. 13. “request” to encom arguing Congress In did not intend the word pass corpus prosequendum, the dissent refers to writs of habeas ad legislative history Agreement to be the indicating that the was not meant purposes of effecting transfer of exclusive means of a a contrary this prosecution. Nothing today, however, is we have said judgment indicates, need As our in 76-1596 the Government intent. No. by way may proceed Agreement. It obtain a state detainer; by prosequendum filing in writ without ever a means of an ad only case, inapplicable. It is is when Govern such by Agreement’s file detainer that it becomes bound ment does provisions. trial had been con- given speedy trial. After his date of his indict- sought for the the dismissal time,
tinued third he him to trial delay bringing in ground ment on the causing him was lodged against the detainer remained while prison. We privileges him certain at the state to be denied Govern- put on sufficient to part deem these actions Ford's of his substance ment and the District on notice of Court claim. conclusion challenge
The United does not was it Appeals (c) applicable, if was that, Court trial. delay bringing in Ford to by violated the extensive correctly Appeals we conclude that the Court Accordingly, and ordered that judgment reversed the the District Court indictment Ford be dismissed. is Appeals in No. 76-1596 judgment The of the Court proceedings the case is remanded for further reversed, and judgment In opinion. consistent with this No. Appeals is the Court affirmed. ordered.
It is so with whom Chief Justice Justice Rehnquist, Mr. in 76-1596 and dissent- concurring judgment in the No. joins, in No. ing 77-52.
I 76-1596 that a agree with the Court’s conclusion No. not a detainer corpus prosequendum writ of habeas ad Detainers. Interstate meaning within the ante, of ad issuance observes, As the Court at 360: “[T]he dat- history, long writs federal courts has a therefore assume first Act. can ing back We Judiciary such writs well aware of the use of Congress when prisoners and that to obtain state Federal Government something quite meant differ- ‘detainer,’ the word it used Indeed, prosequendum.” from a of habeas ent writ history legislative simply language nothing there is *22 to cut Congress to indicate intended of the Agreement on writ. for any way scope back in and use of the But very I these reasons cannot with the result No. 77-52. agree I interesting approach am first struck to Court's be lost statutory significance of which cannot construction, considers on even the most casual reader. The Court requests temporary to be “written for writs custody" Agreement compels, language because the rather because the supports, result, indeed even but “purposes adoption for its and the reasons Ante, at 361. Congress” supposedly lead to result. certainly may necessary interpretative One find it to resort aids other when difficult language than the the statute questions of I how- thought, construction arise. would have language one would turn to statute ever, that first resorting extra-statutory interpretative before to such aids. Kahn, See States v. (1974). U. S. pursuing indeed for reason, necessity, the Court’s opposite readily course in this however. apparent, case The language Agreement simply support does not Court’s Agreement speaks only “requests” conclusion. The custody. In the writ in the other case, instant hand, the warden of the Massachusetts Correctional Institu- Walpole tion “HEREBY COMMANDED to have the at body Judges of RICHARD FORD THOMSON . . before the . of our App. District Court” on a date certain. in No. p. surprised 8. The Massachusetts warden would no doubt be only to hear that the United had the cus- “requested” tody prisoner. of his
But if language even were broad enough encompass writ of corpus, seems me that the same reasons the does not consider Court a "writ to be a request. “detainer” it cannot view writ as a long Congress history, The writ has a of which have been must Agreement. aware when it enacted the It is inconceivable to Congress opera- me that intended to include the writ
367 different new thereby make and and Agreement, the tion of phrase of the by use simply use, from its flow conditions In intima- fact, temporary custody.” request “written contrary. The to history are legislative in the tions Judiciary Committees House and Senate both the Reports of estab- procedures intend Congress did not suggest that effect- means exclusive to be the Agreement lished prosecution. purposes of a a transfer ing whereby prose- method provides also agreement “The serving sentences may prisoners secure authorities cuting expiration before the for trial jurisdictions in other dulled of time has passage before the their sentences Rep. R.H. unavailable.” witnesses or made memory 91-1356, p. Rep. No. 2 (1970); S. p. 91-1018, No. added.) (Emphasis (1970). 1 in on S. Report Judiciary Committee
A draft of the Senate Congressmen many of no leaves doubt 1975 also not did Agreement of the passage in the directly involved application scope limiting the any way they think were states: Report The writ. defend Federal all authorities prosecution “Federal to to have recourse continue always had and ants have C. U. S. pursuant Federal court in a trial speedy of habeas Federal writ (c)(5), §2241 nor intend, does Committee prosequendum. Agree enacting the Congress does it believe that scope applicabil limit intended, to in 1970 ment p. (1975).* Rep. No. S. ity of that writ.” that it overwhelmingly persuasive, given course, not Report is, *This a measure which Agreement and concerns postdates enactment “subsequent so-called time. Such at that into law not even enacted Con intent of legislative change the history” “serve cannot legislative Reorganization Regional Rail passage.” expressed the Act’s gress before represent however, does, (1974). It 102, 132 Cases, 419 U. S. Act I myself likewise find at a loss to exactly discover what problems the United has “precipitated” by lodging a detainer and then securing custody by his use of the or how process writ this allows the Government “to circumvent obligations its under . . . Ante, correctly at 362. The Court recognizes primary that the purpose provide towas a solution *24 problems by prisoners encountered prison systems and aas Ante, result of the lodging of detainers. at 356, 359-360. Upon filing by the mere of a detainer States, how- ever, prisoner clearly has the right Agreement under the to request speedy disposition of the underlying charges if he so Ante, desires. at 351. The way Government in no excuses obligation itself from this by later using a writ of habeas cor- pus prisoner’s to secure the custody. But the same token, when the Government chooses not to advantage take remaining procedures specified in the Agreement after files I see detainer, nothing in the suggest to that the Government is still bound all of the conditions which when attach it does choose advantage to take full of those procedures. I Neither do see anything procedure in this precipitates which any problems was to any intended And alleviate. to the extent of the concerns expressed by the possibility Court to pretrial relate de- Speedy lay, Trial ofAct seq. § U. S. C. et (1976 which ed.), specific creates time limits within which all federal defendants must be if tried, totally must lessen dis- not sipate those concerns. I
Neither can shrug cavalierly off as as the Court Government’s arguments respect with to other lan- related guage of Agreement. The argues Government since ibid., personal legislators, views of these totally is not thus without significance, given, that 12 of the 15 members the Committee who issued Report the draft had been members of the same Committee which issued original Report adoption recommending Agreement. (a) gives sending oppor- the Governor of a State tunity disapprove receiving “request,” State’s the term “request” cannot include the of habeas corpus, writ which a The clearly right comply. has no to refuse to responds meant to do no more provision Court this was preserve pre- than not existing if the did rights, and viously can- right provision have the to refuse then this writs, Ante, But authority. be read as such at 363. providing response simply picking is no all. Court at choosing provisions which it will to the United States apply statu- consistently and which it will construe not, order to by the tory facially scheme which has been made inconsistent I justification, and, Court’s turn at the no wrong outset. see perhaps in this engaging more no importantly, standards, sort of the Court gerrymandering Rather, if, of a statute. “pre- admits, statutory provision only this intended only serve” right “request,” refuse a then Governor’s logical term inference therefrom is that consistent *25 “request” does which can- corpus, not include writs of habeas not refused. argues speedy provision
The Government also trial (c) only possible by applies “proceeding Art. made [s] this article whose proceedings Since an presence been writ are secured possible” by speedy provision “made con- IV, the trial applicable tained therein must not be this case. The argument persuasive. is even less It response Court’s to this primly “accept reading refuses to narrow Government’s ante, provision,” this at but ventures no alternative which is a defensible alternative reading, broad, narrow to that offered the Government. the Court admits was intro-
Finally, Congress by, fairly given one can and, duced into surmise history, into paucity legislative largely enacted law at the which Department Justice, unequivocally behest en- of, dorsed legislation. Rep. S. No. 91-1356, supra, 5-6; 1, at Rep. H. R. No. 91-1018, supra, at 1, 5-6. Thereafter, Department has consistently taken position through its actions, though perhaps not its words, that writs of 'habeas do not fall within the terms of Agreement. This administrative construction certainly may be entitled to less weight if than had been accompanied by a contemporaneous, well-reasoned explanation. IBut would have at thought, least until it was today, entitled to some weight, par- ticularly in a case such as this where the language of the statute is not clear entirely on its face to the extent or, it is, supports, rather than undermines, the administrative construc- Cf. tion. Correll, States v. (1967). U. S. I sum, In am left with the impression distinct that the Court is stretching to reach the result it considers most desirable from policy standpoint. I Since see little in the normal tools of statutory construction justify the interpretation adopted by the Court today, much in them to condemn I it, dissent from the disposition Court’s of No. 77-52. notes I. It Art. in purpose its and is based which based detainers prisoner, a outstanding against “charges difficul- complaints or informations, indictments, untried already incarcerated persons trial speedy securing in ties obstruct which uncertainties produce jurisdictions, other in Accord- rehabilitation.” treatment prisoner programs disposition expeditious encourage is to purpose its ingly, among procedures cooperative provide and to charges such disposition. such facilitate to member States Ill and Art. are of the provisions The central prisoner a by which procedure III a provides Article Art. IV. speedy a can demand filed been has whom detainer a against The detainer. to rise giving charges of the disposition incarcerated is prisoner in which of the institution warden contents of the source promptly him to inform required request right his him and against lodged any detainer prisoner Ill If the (c). Art. charges. disposition final de- filed jurisdiction request, a such make does Ill (a). Art. days.18 within him to trial bring must tainer the final dis- for request aas operates request prisoner’s filed underlying detainers charges untried of all position and is deemed Ill (d), Art. State, by that against’him (e). Ill of extradition. waiver who prosecutor by which the means provides Article can another against a detainer lodged outstand- disposition presence prisoner’s secure prisoner, a detainer filed he has charges. Once ing his prisoner or court, either open good cause shown For may grant matter having over the jurisdiction the court present, counsel continuance. necessary any reasonable prosecutor can him have made available presenting officials State in which the is incarcerated “a request written temporary custody or availability....” Art. IV (a). important Two previously limitations, to, placed referred are on a prosecuting authority once it has obtained presence