Carchman v. Nash

1985-07-02

Headline: Court narrows detainer rules by holding the Interstate Agreement on Detainers does not cover probation-violation detainers, making it harder for incarcerated people to force quick out-of-state probation hearings.

Holding: The Court held that Article III of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers applies only to untried criminal indictments, informations, or complaints and does not cover detainers based on probation-violation charges.

Real World Impact:

Makes it harder for incarcerated people to force quick out-of-state probation hearings.
Leaves probation-violation detainers outside the Agreement’s 180-day dismissal rule.
Shifts responsibility to States to design other procedures for resolving probation detainers.

Topics: prison detainers, probation revocation, interstate transfers, speedy disposition, prisoner rights

Summary

Background

A man serving a New Jersey sentence had a bench warrant lodged as a detainer after being arrested and convicted in Pennsylvania while on probation. He asked New Jersey officials to invoke the Interstate Agreement on Detainers so the probation charge would be resolved quickly. New Jersey did not bring the matter to a trial-type proceeding within 180 days. A federal court granted relief, and the court of appeals said the Agreement covered probation-violation detainers, prompting review by the high court.

Reasoning

The central question was whether Article III of the Agreement reaches detainers based on probation violations. The Court read the Agreement’s words — “indictment, information or complaint” and requirements to be “brought to trial” — as referring to ordinary criminal charges that can be tried. It noted other Agreement provisions and congressional materials that point to criminal prosecutions, and said probation violations normally result in a revocation hearing, not a criminal trial. The Court therefore reversed the court of appeals and held Article III does not apply to probation-violation detainers.

Real world impact

Because Article III’s 180-day trial rule does not cover probation-violation detainers, incarcerated people with such detainers cannot use that federal procedure to force speedy out-of-state probation-revocation hearings. States, prosecutors, and corrections agencies instead keep control over how those detainers are handled, and administrative or transportation burdens noted by the Court remain for legislatures to address.

Dissents or concurrances

A dissent argued the Agreement is remedial and should be read broadly to cover probation detainers, stressing the Agreement’s goal of assuring certainty for prisoner treatment and rehabilitation and criticizing the majority’s narrow reading.