Gerstein v. Pugh case brief summary
420 U.S. 103 (1975)
CASE FACTS
Respondents were arrested in Florida and charged with offenses under a prosecutor's information. One respondent was denied bail and the other respondent was unable to post bond. At the time of respondents' arrest, a person charged by information could be detained for substantial period without opportunity for judicial determination of probable cause. Respondents filed a class action, in which petitioner was one of several defendants, claiming a constitutional right to a judicial hearing on probable cause.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The judgment was affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court agreed that U.S. Constitutional Amendment IV required a timely judicial determination of probable cause as a prerequisite to detention; however, the court did not agree that U.S. Constitutional Amendment IV required the determination of probable cause to be in the form of an adversary hearing.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
420 U.S. 103 (1975)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Petitioner state attorney sought review
of a judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit, affirming a ruling that held that the practice of arresting
and holding a person for trial on an information without a judicial
determination of probable cause for detention was unconstitutional.CASE FACTS
Respondents were arrested in Florida and charged with offenses under a prosecutor's information. One respondent was denied bail and the other respondent was unable to post bond. At the time of respondents' arrest, a person charged by information could be detained for substantial period without opportunity for judicial determination of probable cause. Respondents filed a class action, in which petitioner was one of several defendants, claiming a constitutional right to a judicial hearing on probable cause.
DISCUSSION
- The district court's ruling that the practice of arresting and detaining a person for trial on an information, without a judicial determination of probable cause, was unconstitutional, was affirmed by the circuit court.
- The district court ordered an adversary determination of probable cause.
- The court held that U.S. Constitutional Amendment IV required a judicial determination of probable cause as a prerequisite to extended restraint of liberty following an arrest; however, the Constitution did not require an adversary determination of probable cause.
- The judgment was affirmed in part and reversed in part.
CONCLUSION
The judgment was affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court agreed that U.S. Constitutional Amendment IV required a timely judicial determination of probable cause as a prerequisite to detention; however, the court did not agree that U.S. Constitutional Amendment IV required the determination of probable cause to be in the form of an adversary hearing.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
No comments:
Post a Comment