Summary
The Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment requires a timely judicial determination of probable cause as a prerequisite to extended pretrial detention following arrest. It ruled that a prosecutor's filing of an information does not, by itself, satisfy this requirement. The Court further held that the Constitution does not require a full adversary preliminary hearing with counsel, confrontation, and cross-examination for this probable-cause determination, and remanded the case.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments require a judicial determination of probable cause before a person arrested and charged by information may be subjected to extended pretrial detention or other significant restraint of liberty.
- Whether the Constitution requires that the probable-cause determination be conducted as a full adversary preliminary hearing with counsel, confrontation, cross-examination, and compulsory process.
Holdings
- The Fourth Amendment requires a fair and reliable judicial determination of probable cause as a prerequisite to extended restraint of liberty following arrest. A prosecutor's decision to file an information, standing alone, is insufficient because probable cause must be determined by a neutral and detached judicial officer.
- The Fourth Amendment does not require a full adversary preliminary hearing with appointed counsel, confrontation, cross-examination, or compulsory process to determine probable cause for pretrial detention. The determination may be made in a nonadversary proceeding based on hearsay and written testimony.
- Although a person presently detained may challenge the probable cause for that confinement, a conviction is not vacated merely because the defendant was detained pending trial without a probable-cause determination.
Key quotations
“Accordingly, we hold that the Fourth Amendment requires a judicial determination of probable cause as a prerequisite to extended restraint of liberty following arrest.” (114)
“Whatever procedure a State may adopt, it must provide a fair and reliable determination of probable cause as a condition for any significant pretrial restraint of liberty, and this determination must be made by a judicial officer either before or promptly after arrest.” (125)
“As we do not agree that the Fourth Amendment requires the adversary hearing outlined in the District Court's decree, we reverse in part and remand to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.” (126)
Factual background
Pugh and Henderson were arrested in Dade County, Florida, and charged with noncapital offenses by prosecutor's information. Pugh was denied bail because one charge carried a potential life sentence, while Henderson remained in custody because he could not post a $4,500 bond. Under Florida procedures then in effect, persons charged by information could be detained for a substantial period without a judicial determination of probable cause. Turner and Faulk, also detained under informations, intervened in the resulting class action.
Procedural history
Pugh and Henderson were arrested in Dade County, Florida, charged by prosecutor's information, and detained without a judicial probable-cause determination. They filed a class action against Dade County officials; Turner and Faulk later intervened. The District Court certified the class, held the practice unconstitutional, and entered detailed preliminary-hearing requirements. After Florida amended its criminal rules, the District Court reaffirmed its ruling and the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Remand instructions
The case was remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. The constitutional requirement of a timely judicial probable-cause determination was affirmed, but the District Court's mandated full adversary hearing was reversed.