United states v salerno
The judicial officer is not given unbridled discretion in making the detention determination.
Nothing in the text of the Bail Clause limits permissible Government considerations solely to questions of flight. Boyle is far too slender a reed on which to rest this argument. As an initial matter, the mere fact that a person is detained does not inexorably lead to the conclusion that the government has imposed punishment.
To determine whether a restriction on liberty constitutes impermissible punishment or permissible regulation, we first look to legislative intent. The fact that the Bail Reform Act might operate unconstitutionally under some conceivable set of circumstances is insufficient to render it wholly invalid, since we have not recognized an "overbreadth" doctrine outside the limited context of the First Amendment.
Salerno opposed the motion for detention, challenging the credibility of the Government's witnesses. Under these narrow circumstances, society's interest in crime prevention is at its greatest. See Ludecke v.
United states v salerno
If the police suspect an individual of a crime, they may arrest and hold him until a neutral magistrate determines whether probable cause exists. III In our society, liberty is the norm, and detention prior to trial or without trial is the carefully limited exception. III , as the solution to a bail crisis in the federal courts. Bell v. A court may, for example, refuse bail in capital cases. And, as the Court of Appeals noted and respondents admit, a court may refuse bail when the defendant presents a threat to the judicial process by intimidating witnesses. In a full-blown adversary hearing, the Government must convince a neutral decisionmaker by clear and convincing evidence that no conditions of release can reasonably assure the safety of the community or any person. Finally, the judicial officer must include written findings of fact and a written statement of reasons for a decision to detain. Perry, F. Congress specifically found that these individuals are far more likely to be responsible for dangerous acts in the community after arrest. It reasoned that our criminal law system holds persons accountable for past actions, not anticipated future actions. The Bail Reform Act of Act allows a federal court to detain an arrestee pending trial if the Government demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence after an adversary hearing that no release conditions "will reasonably assure. The authority for Salerno's present incarceration remains the District Court's pretrial detention order. Respondents characterize all of these cases as exceptions to the "general rule" of substantive due process that the government may not detain a person prior to a judgment of guilt in a criminal trial. The Government must first of all demonstrate probable cause to believe that the charged crime has been committed by the arrestee, but that is not enough.
based on 97 review