The unconstitutionality of "hold until cleared": Reexamining material witness detentions in the wake of the September 11th dragnet

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, federal agents and prosecutors have sought and obtained the detention of dozens of individuals as so-called "material witnesses." Though charged with no crime, these people have been subjected to secret weeks- or months-long incarcerations. Nearly all have been released after the government was satisfied they had no terrorist ties. Despite the outrage that the government's tactic has engendered, the constitutionality of detaining material witnesses has not been seriously questioned by litigants, courts, or legal commentators. Laboring under the misapprehension that the incarceration of witnesses has long been held constitutional, commentators have been constrained merely to echo the mainstream media's complaint that the Department of Justice is "abusing" the material witness statute. Court challenges to such detentions have likewise been rebuffed on the ground that such detentions have long been held constitutional. This Article examines the federal government's unprecedented and calculated reliance on the material witness statute in its post-September 11th terrorism investigation. Examining the cases cited in support of the idea that prolonged incarceration of witnesses is constitutional, the Article shows how historical practice, Supreme Court precedent, and the Constitution itself have been misread to justify a tactic offensive to the Fourth Amendment. Authorities from the earliest days of the Republic to the present make clear that, rather than supporting the incarceration of witnesses, the practice is at best of dubious constitutionality. The Article concludes that the Executive's reliance on the statute for investigative detentions and the Judiciary's credulous acquiescence in this practice pose a potentially long-term threat to the Fourth Amendment's basic safeguard against unreasonable seizures.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)677-736
Number of pages60
JournalVanderbilt Law Review
Volume58
Issue number3
StatePublished - Apr 1 2005

Fingerprint

witness
statute
constitutionality
tactics
amendment
seizure
September 11, 2001
judiciary
complaint
Federal Government
Supreme Court
republic
terrorism
constitution
justice
offense
threat
present

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Law

Cite this

@article{95c1665e7e794f95a8560e2ab2d963a0,
title = "The unconstitutionality of {"}hold until cleared{"}: Reexamining material witness detentions in the wake of the September 11th dragnet",
abstract = "Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, federal agents and prosecutors have sought and obtained the detention of dozens of individuals as so-called {"}material witnesses.{"} Though charged with no crime, these people have been subjected to secret weeks- or months-long incarcerations. Nearly all have been released after the government was satisfied they had no terrorist ties. Despite the outrage that the government's tactic has engendered, the constitutionality of detaining material witnesses has not been seriously questioned by litigants, courts, or legal commentators. Laboring under the misapprehension that the incarceration of witnesses has long been held constitutional, commentators have been constrained merely to echo the mainstream media's complaint that the Department of Justice is {"}abusing{"} the material witness statute. Court challenges to such detentions have likewise been rebuffed on the ground that such detentions have long been held constitutional. This Article examines the federal government's unprecedented and calculated reliance on the material witness statute in its post-September 11th terrorism investigation. Examining the cases cited in support of the idea that prolonged incarceration of witnesses is constitutional, the Article shows how historical practice, Supreme Court precedent, and the Constitution itself have been misread to justify a tactic offensive to the Fourth Amendment. Authorities from the earliest days of the Republic to the present make clear that, rather than supporting the incarceration of witnesses, the practice is at best of dubious constitutionality. The Article concludes that the Executive's reliance on the statute for investigative detentions and the Judiciary's credulous acquiescence in this practice pose a potentially long-term threat to the Fourth Amendment's basic safeguard against unreasonable seizures.",
author = "Ricardo Bascuas",
year = "2005",
month = "4",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "58",
pages = "677--736",
journal = "Vanderbilt Law Review",
issn = "0042-2533",
publisher = "Vanderbilt Law Review",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The unconstitutionality of "hold until cleared"

T2 - Reexamining material witness detentions in the wake of the September 11th dragnet

AU - Bascuas, Ricardo

PY - 2005/4/1

Y1 - 2005/4/1

N2 - Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, federal agents and prosecutors have sought and obtained the detention of dozens of individuals as so-called "material witnesses." Though charged with no crime, these people have been subjected to secret weeks- or months-long incarcerations. Nearly all have been released after the government was satisfied they had no terrorist ties. Despite the outrage that the government's tactic has engendered, the constitutionality of detaining material witnesses has not been seriously questioned by litigants, courts, or legal commentators. Laboring under the misapprehension that the incarceration of witnesses has long been held constitutional, commentators have been constrained merely to echo the mainstream media's complaint that the Department of Justice is "abusing" the material witness statute. Court challenges to such detentions have likewise been rebuffed on the ground that such detentions have long been held constitutional. This Article examines the federal government's unprecedented and calculated reliance on the material witness statute in its post-September 11th terrorism investigation. Examining the cases cited in support of the idea that prolonged incarceration of witnesses is constitutional, the Article shows how historical practice, Supreme Court precedent, and the Constitution itself have been misread to justify a tactic offensive to the Fourth Amendment. Authorities from the earliest days of the Republic to the present make clear that, rather than supporting the incarceration of witnesses, the practice is at best of dubious constitutionality. The Article concludes that the Executive's reliance on the statute for investigative detentions and the Judiciary's credulous acquiescence in this practice pose a potentially long-term threat to the Fourth Amendment's basic safeguard against unreasonable seizures.

AB - Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, federal agents and prosecutors have sought and obtained the detention of dozens of individuals as so-called "material witnesses." Though charged with no crime, these people have been subjected to secret weeks- or months-long incarcerations. Nearly all have been released after the government was satisfied they had no terrorist ties. Despite the outrage that the government's tactic has engendered, the constitutionality of detaining material witnesses has not been seriously questioned by litigants, courts, or legal commentators. Laboring under the misapprehension that the incarceration of witnesses has long been held constitutional, commentators have been constrained merely to echo the mainstream media's complaint that the Department of Justice is "abusing" the material witness statute. Court challenges to such detentions have likewise been rebuffed on the ground that such detentions have long been held constitutional. This Article examines the federal government's unprecedented and calculated reliance on the material witness statute in its post-September 11th terrorism investigation. Examining the cases cited in support of the idea that prolonged incarceration of witnesses is constitutional, the Article shows how historical practice, Supreme Court precedent, and the Constitution itself have been misread to justify a tactic offensive to the Fourth Amendment. Authorities from the earliest days of the Republic to the present make clear that, rather than supporting the incarceration of witnesses, the practice is at best of dubious constitutionality. The Article concludes that the Executive's reliance on the statute for investigative detentions and the Judiciary's credulous acquiescence in this practice pose a potentially long-term threat to the Fourth Amendment's basic safeguard against unreasonable seizures.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=29144514333&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=29144514333&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Review article

AN - SCOPUS:29144514333

VL - 58

SP - 677

EP - 736

JO - Vanderbilt Law Review

JF - Vanderbilt Law Review

SN - 0042-2533

IS - 3

ER -