DOCSLIB.ORG

Fugitive Warrant Procedures/Guidelines

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fugitive Warrant Procedures/Guidelines Fugitive Warrant Procedures/Guidelines DEFINITIONS: “LIMITED” EXTRADITION Fugitive Defined ∗∗∗ At times, officers will find an NCIC “hit” that is “Limited.” The “hit” will indicate a A fugitive is a person who is accused or specific area that the demanding state convicted of a crime and flees unlawfully from will extradite from, which may or may not one state and is later found in another state. include California. ∗∗∗ Regardless of any limitations on the Fugitive Warrant Defined NCIC “hit,” the suspect shall be booked 1551.1 PC. A fugitive warrant is the arrest warrant issued ∗∗∗ Do not contact the demanding state by the local court in the demanding state, for warrant information. Experience providing probable cause to arrest and detain has shown that despite the stated the fugitive in this state. limitations, the demanding state will frequently extradite beyond the stated Asylum State Defined limitations. The Asylum State is where the fugitive has FEDERAL WARRANTS taken refuge or is found. ∗∗∗ Federal warrants can be identified via Demanding State Defined the Originating Agency Identifier (ORI). Example: ORI/ AZ FBI PX000 (wanted in The demanding state is the state that issued Arizona on an FBI warrant) ORI/ the warrant. VA USM 0053 (wanted in Virginia by the US Marshals). It will also indicate in the FUGITIVE WARRANTS VIA NATIONAL body of the NCIC “hit” to whom the CRIME INFORMATION CENTER (NCIC) warrant belongs. ∗∗∗ NEVER book a suspect 1551.1 PC ∗∗∗ Fugitives are usually found by conducting a who is wanted on a Federal warrant. computerized want and warrant check of a ∗∗∗ Federal warrants shall be booked suspect receiving a “hit” in NCIC. under the appropriate US Title or US ∗∗∗ An arrest warrant issued outside of Code, of which every Department jail California is not recognized as an arrest facility has a copy. warrant in California. ∗∗∗ Unlike 1551.1 PC charges, officers ∗∗∗ California Penal Code section 1551.1 gives shall contact the phone number on California Peace Officers the authority to act the NCIC “hit” and have the abstract as an agent for the “Demanding State.” teletyped to the jail facility where the ∗∗∗ Therefore, 1551.1 PC is a probable cause suspect is to be booked. arrest, an open charge, and not a warrant. A Probable Cause Determination (PCD) is OFFICER’S RESPONSIBILITY always required with a 1551.1 PC arrest. ∗∗∗ A suspect arrested for another “NOEX” (NO EXTRADITION) state’s warrant shall be booked 1551.1 PC, Fugitive/State/Charge. ∗∗∗ Officers may encounter an NCIC “hit” Example: 1551.1 PC FUG/TX/ROBBERY bearing the designation “ NOEX.” This ∗∗∗ A PCD is always required for a designator means the demanding state 1551.1 PC arrest. absolutely will not extradite. ∗∗∗ All 1551.1 PC arrests are always NO ∗∗∗ In this case, the officer shall not arrest the BAIL. person based on the “hit” without independent probable cause. 18.45.00 (10/02) ∗∗∗ Local and state charges always take WRITING THE REPORT precedence. However, if the local charge is an offense eligible for release from ∗∗∗ In the narrative of the arrest custody, a Nontraffic Notice to Appear, report, officers shall describe in Form 5.02.2, shall not be completed. detail how the suspect was Officers shall include the elements of the identified as the person wanted RFC offense in the narrative of the arrest on the NCIC hit. report and book for 1551.1 PC. ∗∗∗ If the suspect had a driver ∗∗∗ Obtain booking advice from Detective license or social security card in Support Division (DSD), Fugitive Warrant his/her possession that Section (FWS) during day watch hours at matched the NCIC hit, make a (213) 473-7400 or Detective Headquarters photocopy of any applicable Division (DHD) after hours. documents and include it as a ∗∗∗ A Copy of the NCIC entry (wanted persons page of the report. “hit”) shall be a page of the arrest report. ∗∗∗ Officers should include ∗∗∗ DO NOT CONTACT THE DEMANDING spontaneous statements in the STATE! A copy of the actual warrant is arrest report made by the not needed to book the suspect, just a suspect admitting to be the copy of the NCIC hit with the NIC number wanted person. shown at the bottom of the print out. Example: NIC/W123456789. SUBMITTING REPORTS ∗∗∗ DO NOT conduct a “ Locate Warrant” (LW), which means do not locate and ∗∗∗ If the arrest report is for a 1551.1 remove the NCIC hit from the system. PC charge only and made in the Officers shall print out the NCIC “hit” and Operations Valley Bureau, all make it a page of the arrest report. original arrest reports and PCDs shall be turned in to Van Nuys OUT OF STATE STOLEN VEHICLES Area. A copy of the arrest report and PCD goes back to the ∗∗∗ The driver and all occupants, except for Area/division of arrest. small children unable to operate a motor ∗∗∗ If the arrest report is for a vehicle, shall be booked for 1551.1 PC. 1551.1 PC charge only and ∗∗∗ Example: 1551.1 PC FUG/FL/GTA. made in the Metropolitan area ∗∗∗ Never book for 10851 VC or 487 (D) PC. (Central, West and South ∗∗∗ Do not contact the demanding state for Bureaus) of the city, all original warrant or stolen vehicle information. Do arrest reports and a copy of the not contact the registered owner of PCD shall be turned in to vehicle. Specialized Reports Distribution Unit (SRDU) at Parker Center, DEPARTMENT MANUAL SECTION 4/216.70 Room 151. The original PCD states, “Officers shall not contact the out-of- and a copy of the arrest report state jurisdiction for warrant information goes back to the Area/division prior to contacting Fugitive Warrant Section of arrest. or Detective Headquarters Division.” ∗∗∗ If the 1551.1 PC is a supplemental charge on the BOOKING LOCATIONS arrest report, all arrest reports and PCDs go to the division of ∗∗∗ Male suspects who are booked on a arrest. In the margin of the 1551.1 PC fugitive charge only, shall be arrest report, mark the extra booked at PAB Jail Division or Van Nuys copy box “DSD/FWS.” Jail. Females shall be booked at 77 th Street or Van Nuys Jail. ∗∗∗ If the suspect has a local charge and a supplemental 1551.1 PC fugitive charge, the suspect can be booked at any area jail..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Central Valley Joint Fugitive Task Force
    EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CENTRAL VALLEY JOINT FUGITIVE TASK FORCE For Immediate Press Release Contact: Eastern District of California July 1, 2011 Deputy Jason Ferrell (559)487-5559 Tehachapi – U.S. Marshal Albert Najera, of the Eastern District of California, announced today that the U.S. Marshals Central Valley Joint Fugitive Task Force (CVJFTF) arrested Mitchell Dennis Knox. On June 30, 2011, the Joint Support Operations Center (JSOC), in ATF Headquarters, received information about the possible whereabouts of Mitchell Knox who was a fugitive from Operation Woodchuck. This was a year-long investigation that included an undercover ATF agent infiltrating a group of criminals who were selling illegal firearms and narcotics in the San Fernando Valley. During the course of the investigation, ATF undercover agents purchased stolen firearms, machine guns and silencers. Other agencies participating in Operation Woodchuck were the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), Office of Correctional Safety-Special Service Unit (CDCR- SSU), and the Los Angeles Police Department. The information from JSOC was provided to the local ATF field office in Fresno, CA. The Fresno ATF agents have been invaluable participants on the U.S. Marshals Central Valley Joint Fugitive Task Force (CVJFTF) in the Eastern District of California. On the same day the tip was received, members of the CVJFTF traveled the 135 miles from Fresno to Tehachapi in an effort to track down Knox. The task force, along with the Kern County Sheriff’s Department, responded to a remote location in the foot-hills of Tehachapi. The team was able to locate a residence where the subject was possibly staying.
    [Show full text]
  • Fugitive Slaves and the Legal Regulation of Black Mississippi River Crossing, 1804–1860
    Strengthening Slavery’s Border, Undermining Slavery: Fugitive Slaves and the Legal Regulation of Black Mississippi River Crossing, 1804–1860 BY JESSE NASTA 16 | The Confluence | Spring/Summer 2017 In 1873, formerly enslaved St. Louisan James master’s consent, or of the passenger’s free status, P. Thomas applied for a United States passport. persisted until the Civil War.3 After collecting the passport at his attorney’s office, Yet, while the text of the Missouri statute Thomas hurried home “to take a look at it” because remained fairly constant, its meaning changed over he had “never expected to see” his name on such a the six tumultuous decades between the Louisiana document. He marveled that this government-issued Purchase and the Civil War because virtually passport gave him “the right to travel where he everything else in this border region changed. The choose [sic] and under the protection of the American former Northwest Territory, particularly Illinois, flag.” As Thomas recalled in his 1903 autobiography, was by no means an automatic destination for those he spent “most of the night trying to realize the great escaping slavery. For at least four decades after the change that time had wrought.” As a free African Northwest Ordinance of 1787 nominally banned American in 1850s St. Louis, he had been able to slavery from this territory, the enslavement and cross the Mississippi River to Illinois only when trafficking of African Americans persisted there. “known to the officers of the boat” or if “two or three Although some slaves risked escape to Illinois, reliable citizens made the ferry company feel they enslaved African Americans also escaped from this were taking no risk in carrying me into a free state.”1 “free” jurisdiction, at least until the 1830s, as a result.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 United States District Court
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT CHATTANOOGA JAMES A. BARNETT, ) ) Plaintiff,) v. ) No. 1:06-cv-235 ) Edgar/Lee LENDA CLARK; KEN COX; ) DEPUTY SILER; SHERIFF BILLY LONG; ) JIM HART, CHIEF OF CORRECTIONS; ) HAMILTON DISTRICT ATTORNEY BILL ) COX; ) ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM James A. Barnett ("Plaintiff"), a former Tennessee inmate brings this pro se complaint for damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, contending that he was illegally extradited to Tennessee in violation of his constitutional rights. Plaintiff has been released and now resides in Georgia (Court File # 67). The defendants are Lt. Lenda Clark ("Lt. Clark"), Ken Cox ("Deputy Cox"), Deputy Siler ("Deputy Siler"), Sheriff Billy Long ("Sheriff Long"), and Jim Hart, Chief of Corrections at Hamilton County Jail ("Chief Hart"). Hamilton County District Attorney Bill Cox was dismissed from this litigation by previous Order of this Court (Court File #53). Plaintiff asserts Defendants violated his constitutional rights when they extradited him from Georgia to Tennessee in absence of a signed Governor's extradition warrant, wavier of extradition rights, or habeas hearing. Plaintiff contends he is entitled to damages for these constitutional violations. Defendants contend that a violation of the procedures provided in the Uniform Criminal 1 Case 1:06-cv-00235 Document 76 Filed 01/22/08 Page 1 of 21 PageID #: <pageID> Extradition Act (“UCEA”), codified in Tennessee at Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-9-101 et. seq.1 does not create a cognizable constitutional claim under § 1983 in the Sixth Circuit and the release of Plaintiff in September of 2006 to the Hamilton County Sheriff’s Department is governed by the UCEA.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendixg Fugitive Dust Control Plan
    APPENDIXG FUGITIVE DUST CONTROL PLAN As required by §324.5524 a fugitive dust control plan has been prepared. Pertinent sections are as follows: (1) The provisions of this section, including subsection (2), shall apply to any fugitive dust source at all mining operations. (2) Except as provided in subsection (8), a person responsible for any fugitive dust source regulated under this section shall not cause or allow the emission of fugitive dust from any road, lot, or storage pile, including any material handling activity at a storage pile, that has an opacity greater than 5% as determined by reference test method 9d. Except as otherwise provided in subsection (8) or this section, a person shall not cause or allow the emission of fugitive dust from any other fugitive dust source that has an opacity greater than 20% as determined by test method 9d. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to storage pile material handling activities when wind speeds are in excess of25 miles per hour (40.2 kilometers per hour). (3) In addition to the requirements of subsection (2), and except as provided in subdivisions (e), (f), and (g), a person shall control fugitive dust emissions in a manner that results in compliance with all of the following provisions: (iv) All unloading and transporting operations of materials collected by pollution control equipment shall be enclosed or shall utilize spraying, pelletizing, screw conveying, or other equivalent methods. (v) Crushers, grinding mills, screening operations, bucket elevators, conveyor transfer points, conveyor bagging operations, storage bins, and fine product truck and railcar loading operations shall be sprayed with water or a surfactant solution, utilize choke-feeding, or be treated by an equivalent method in accordance with an operating program required under subsection (4).
    [Show full text]
  • Fugitive Dust
    Fugitive Dust Why Control Fugitive Dust? Sources of Fugitive Dust Besides causing the need for additional Significant sources of fugitive dust include cleaning of homes and vehicles, fugitive dust grain bins, quarries, haul roads and can cause low visibility on unpaved roads, construction sites. which can lead to accidents. In severe cases, In the example of an unpaved road, fugitive Division of Compliance it can interfere with plant growth by clogging dust is created when a vehicle travels down pores and reducing light interception. Dust Assistance the unpaved road. The larger and faster the particles are abrasive to mechanical vehicle, the more dust it will create. One way 300 Sower Boulevard, First Floor equipment and damaging to electronic of controlling this is with dust suppression, equipment, such as computers. Frankfort, KY 40601 such as water or gravel, at the end of unpaved What Is Fugitive Dust? Phone: 502-564-0323 Although generally not toxic, fugitive dust roads. can cause health problems, alone or in Fugitive dust is defined as dust that is not Email: [email protected] emitted from definable point sources, such as combination with other air pollutants. dca.ky.gov industrial smokestacks. Sources include open Infants, the elderly and people with Dust from around the world! fields, roadways and storage piles. respiratory problems, such as asthma or bronchitis, are the most likely to be affected. Fugitive dust you create does not affect only The state regulation that provides for the In addition, not controlling fugitive dust at a those within close proximity to your location. control of fugitive emissions may be accessed worksite can create more hassle for the In a model of dust imports developed by at http://www.lrc.ky.gov/kar/ worksite foreman in response to complaints researchers from Harvard and NASA shows 401/063/010.htm.
    [Show full text]
  • The Fugitive
    LEVEL 3 Teacher’s notes Teacher Support Programme The Fugitive J. M. Dillard Chapter 1: On the night of his hospital’s fund-raising EASYSTARTS party, there is an intruder in Kimble’s house and his wife Helen is shot and killed. Chapter 2: Kimble sees the intruder briefly, and notices LEVEL 2 that he has an artificial arm, before the intruder knocks him out and escapes into the night. Kimble is arrested for the murder of his wife. With no evidence to support his LEVEL 3 story, he cannot prove his innocence and he is sentenced to death. Chapter 3: On the way to the state prison, however, LEVEL 4 Kimble escapes. He runs into the darkness, determined to look for the man with one arm. About the TV series and film Chapter 4: Detective Gerard and his team start to chase LEVEL 5 Kimble. Kimble is nearly caught in a tunnel, but he escapes The book The Fugitive is based on the screenplay of the again by jumping into the Tennessee River far below. extremely successful film The Fugitive, which was released in 1993. The film was based on the TV series The Fugitive, Chapter 5: Kimble manages to get back to Chicago. He LEVEL 6 an American series starring David Janssen. It was shown wants some help from his friends, but only Nichols helps in many countries for four years, from 1963 to 1967. him. Kimble, a doctor, is looking for the killer of his wife. He Chapter 6: Kimble disguises himself as a cleaner and finds is being chased by the police, who think he killed her.
    [Show full text]
  • IN the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the DISTRICT of KANSAS UNITED STATES of AMERICA, Plaintiff, Vs. No. 98-40107-01-SAC TODD
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, Vs. No. 98-40107-01-SAC TODD C. MOORE, Defendant. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The defendant Todd C. Moore appearing pro se has filed a motion for early termination of his supervised release. (Dk. 376). Released from incarceration in May of 2012, the defendant began serving his five-year term of supervised release. The defendant argues for early termination based on his continuous employment, starting his own businesses, his drug- free condition since December of 2014, and his completion of mental health counseling and the MRT program in 2014. The government opposes the motion summarizing from the earlier revocation proceedings that the defendant had tested positive for marijuana in drug tests in 2013 and 2014 and had failed to cooperate in 2014 with U.S. Marshals Service in locating a federal fugitive with whom the defendant admitted his association with the fugitive and knowledge of the fugitive’s location. The government also has learned from the defendant’s supervising officer that in July of 2015 the defendant was found in possession of a stolen riding lawn mower and that the defendant had recently ignored his officer’s warning not to have contact with a federal fugitive. By statute, the court may terminate a defendant’s supervised release after one year “if it is satisfied that such action is warranted by the conduct of the defendant release and the interest of justice.” 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1). The statute commits this determination to the discretion and exclusive authority of the sentencing court.
    [Show full text]
  • IN the SUPREME COURT of IOWA Supreme Court No
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA Supreme Court No. 16-1544 STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MICHAEL JEFFERSON, Defendant-Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR SCOTT COUNTY THE HONORABLE MARLITA A. GREVE, JUDGE APPELLEE’S BRIEF THOMAS J. MILLER Attorney General of Iowa SHARON K. HALL Assistant Attorney General Hoover State Office Building, 2nd Floor Des Moines, Iowa 50319 (515) 281-5976 (515) 281-4902 (fax) [email protected] MICHAEL J. WALTON Scott County Attorney ELECTRONICALLY FILED MAY 18, 2017 CLERK OF SUPREME COURT ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE FINAL 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.................................................................. 4 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW ............ 9 ROUTING STATEMENT .................................................................... 13 STATEMENT OF THE CASE.............................................................. 14 ARGUMENT ....................................................................................... 19 I. The District Court Did Not Err in Failing to Grant Jefferson’s Request for Appointment of Counsel to Assist with His Motion for Correction of an Illegal Sentence. No Constitutional or Statutory Right to Counsel Attached Upon the Filing of a Motion Challenging a Section 903B.1 Special Sentence. ........ 19 A. Statutory Right. ................................................................... 22 B. Constitutional Rights. ......................................................... 28 C. Iowa Constitution. ...............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Southern Sympathies in Illinois As Expressed Through Nelson Vs the People Kathrine M
    _________________________________________________________________ Southern Sympathies in Illinois as Expressed through Nelson vs The People Kathrine M. Gosnell Kathrine Gosnell is a senior history major from Mattoon, Illinois. She wrote this paper for Dr. Lynne Curry’s HIS 2500: Historical Research and Writing. A special thank you is extended to Dr. Lynne Curry, Dr. Christopher A. Schnell, the manuscript curator at the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum, and the various librarians for providing assistance for this paper. __________________________________________________________________ Throughout the Antebellum Period, Illinois proved itself to be a problematic state when compared to that of its Northern counterparts. Geographically, it was a northern state, but population-wise, it was split between northern and southern migrants. Around the Chicago area, abolitionism had a strong pull as seen in the various “colored” conventions held there, as well as the variety of Whig/Republican newspapers. Yet, from the state capital of Springfield and southward, many people held Democratic viewpoints and showed sympathy for their southern neighbors. As two slave states bordered Illinois, it is easy to understand how these neighbors had an impact on Illinoisan culture and politics. Illinois was not the only northern state to enact Black Laws, which put severe restrictions on blacks and often banned them from settling in certain states. Still, Illinois’s laws were among the harshest. While enforcement of these laws was sporadic, most prosecutions came in the southern part of the state. Among the most controversial of Illinois’ Black Laws was the Black Exclusion Law of 1853. This law prohibited blacks from coming into the state with the intention of living there.
    [Show full text]
  • Searching for Slavery: Fugitive Slaves in the Ohio River Valley Borderland, 1830–1860
    Searching for Slavery: Fugitive Slaves in the Ohio River Valley Borderland, 1830–1860 Matthew Salafia Ohio Valley History, Volume 8, Number 4, Winter 2008, pp. 38-63 (Article) Published by The Filson Historical Society and Cincinnati Museum Center For additional information about this article https://muse.jhu.edu/article/568165/summary [ Access provided at 28 Sep 2021 21:47 GMT with no institutional affiliation ] 41„ I. Ai12* St) I... i. l 461 * PG 4 1 . r 1, 2 $ 4. 9 V. 4 1 . j 41,1' f : 4, L# A l 3 S. i S I. ' I. %.1 ' 3 1 h . f. I. f.. I I 1 k r 4 r Formerslavequarters the on Winston place,Burlington Boone County,Kentucky,1868 THE FL SON HISTOR(AL SOC ET i Searching for Slavery Fugitiue Slaues in the Ohio River Valley Borderland,1830-1860 Matthew Salafia n the 18505, Richard Daly enjoyed considerable freedom for a man I in bondage Daly lived in Trimble County, Kentucky, on a planta- tion along the Ohio River owned by two brothers, Samuel and George Ferrin Daly worked on the farm and regularly attended the market in free of Indiana He Madison, across the river in the nominally state mar- ried Kitty, a house servant from a neighboring plantation, and they had four children before Kitty died in childbirth at the age of twenty Daly protected his family as best he could and visited his children nightly According to Daly's later description, in the 1850s he yearned to be free, 38 OHIO VALLEY HISTORY MATTHEW SALAFIA but he also recognized that despite his enslaved status he still enjoyed some opportunities and autonomy.
    [Show full text]
  • Fugitive Migration Patterns
    FUGITIVE MIGRATION PATTERNS Darcy Kim Rossmo B.A., University of Saskatchewan, 1978 THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT.OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF M.A. (CRIMINOLOGY) in the School of Criminology @ Darcy Kim Rossmo 1987 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY August 1987 . All rights reserved. This work may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without permission of the author. APPROVAL Name: Darcy Kim Rossmo Degree: M.A. (Criminology) Title of thesis: Fugitive Migration Patterns Examining Committee: Chairman : Robert J. Menzies John Lowman Senior Supervisor - ,,, , JQ~H-w.~~stede- ~hdrtern- Frofessor, School of Criminology Date Approved: August, 1987 PARTIAL COPYRIGHT LICENSE I hereby grant to Simon Fraser University the right to lend my thesis, project or extended essay (the title of which is shown below) to users of the Simon Fraser University Library, and to make partial or single copies only for such users or in response to a request from the library of any other university, or other educational institution, on its own behalf or for one of its users. I further agree that permission for multiple copying of this work for scholarly purposes may be granted by me or the Dean of Graduate Studies. It is understood that copying or publication of this work for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Fugitive Migration Patterns Author: (signature) Darcy Kim Rossmo (name (date) ABSTRACT The vast majority of accused adults in Canada are released through a variety of legal processes at some point prior to the final disposition of their cases.
    [Show full text]
  • Sword Or Shield: Due Process and the Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine Martha B
    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 87 Article 4 Issue 3 Spring Spring 1997 Sword or Shield: Due Process and the Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine Martha B. Stolley Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation Martha B. Stolley, Sword or Shield: Due Process and the Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine, 87 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 751 (1996-1997) This Supreme Court Review is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. 00914169/96/8703-0751 TnEJOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW & CRIMINOLOGY Vol. 87, No. 3 Copyright © 1997 by Northwestern University, School of Law Prnted in U.S.A. SWORD OR SHIELD: DUE PROCESS AND THE FUGITIVE DISENTITLEMENT DOCTRINE Degen v. United States, 116 S. Ct. 1777 (1996) I. INTRODUCTION In Degen v. United States,' the United States Supreme Court ad- dressed whether to expand the fugitive disentitlement doctrine2 be- yond its traditional criminal appeals setting to the context of civil forfeiture.3 The Court unanimously ruled that a person who is a fugi- tive from justice on a criminal charge is not barred from defending against a civil action brought by the Government to confiscate his property.4 In refusing to extend the doctrine to the
    [Show full text]