Fugitive Felon Act

Last updated
Fugitive Felon Act
Great Seal of the United States (obverse).svg
Long titleAn Act making it unlawful for any person to flee from one State to another for the purpose of avoiding prosecution or the giving of testimony in certain cases
Acronyms (colloquial)FFA
Enacted bythe 73rd United States Congress
EffectiveMay 18, 1934
Citations
Public law 73-234
Statutes at Large 48  Stat.   782
Codification
Titles amended 18 U.S.C.: Crimes and Criminal Procedure
U.S.C. sections created 18 U.S.C.   § 1073
Legislative history
  • Introduced in the Senate as S. 2253 by Royal S. Copeland (D–NY) on January 11, 1934
  • Passed the Senate on March 29, 1934 
  • Passed the House on May 17, 1934 
  • Signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on May 18, 1934

The Fugitive Felon Act, abbreviated FFA, [1] is a United States federal law that criminalizes interstate flight in order to avoid prosecution or giving testimony in state felony proceedings, a crime termed unlawful flight. [2]

Contents

The FFA was introduced to the Senate by Committee on Commerce chairman Royal S. Copeland in January 1934, and was signed into law in May of that year. The law was intended to hasten the process of apprehending and prosecuting members of armed gangs who could easily move across state lines; pre-existing procedures for interstate rendition were cumbersome and expensive and the lack of federal jurisdiction meant that state law enforcement could not cross interstate boundaries in pursuit of a criminal. Although the latter was addressed by the Act by virtue of empowering federal law enforcement to arrest fugitives charged with state crimes, the FFA's other intended goal of circumventing interstate rendition procedures has not been carried out and extradition of captured fugitives to the prosecuting state remains a state affair.

Although the FFA lists a punishment for unlawful flight, actual prosecutions under it are rare because the Act is intended as an instrument allowing federal authorities to arrest fugitives fleeing state charges.

History

Background

The interwar period in the United States saw both an increase in crime and improvements in transportation that made apprehension of criminals more difficult. [3] Interstate fugitives could only be returned to the prosecuting state through rendition, a lengthy and costly process rife with bureaucratic difficulties and subject to state discretion. On the other hand, a fugitive arrested for a federal crime could be quickly and easily returned to the relevant federal district via federal removal, as arresting officers had national jurisdiction. [4] The lack of a right of law enforcement to cross state lines to pursue a criminal also presented crime-fighting difficulties that could be solved by allowing federal authorities to apprehend fugitives. [5] The crimes the Fugitive Felon Act was meant to address were primarily those perpetuated by armed groups like the Dillinger Gang. [6]

In Congress

The bill that would become the Fugitive Felon Act was introduced to the Senate by Royal S. Copeland, chair of the Committee on Commerce, on January 11, 1934, as part of a series of thirteen bills to strengthen crime-fighting. [7] The bill, then known as S. 2253, was passed by the Senate on March 29, 1934. [8]

S. 2253 was passed by the House on May 17, 1934. [9] The bill was signed into law by Franklin D. Roosevelt a day later. In its 1934 formulation, the Act read as follows: [7]

Be it enacted, etc., That it shall be unlawful for any person to move or travel in interstate commerce from any state, territory or possession of the United States, or the District of Columbia, with intent either (1) to avoid prosecution for murder, kidnaping, burglary, robbery, mayhem, rape, assault with a dangerous weapon, or extortion accompanied by threats of violence, or attempt to commit any of the foregoing, under the laws of the place from which he flees, or (2) to avoid giving testimony in any criminal proceedings in which a felony is charged. Any person who violates the provisions of this act shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of not more than $5,000 or by imprisonment for not longer than 5 years, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Violations of this act may be prosecuted only in the Federal judicial district in which the original crime to have been committed.

On October 4, 1961, President John F. Kennedy approved an amendment of the bill that expanded its coverage to include fugitives fleeing prosecution for any crime punishable by death or imprisonment for greater than one year in the original jurisdiction. [10] The amendment faced little opposition within the House compared to other crime-related legislation passed around the same time. [11] The amendment resulted in what FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover called an "appreciable increase" in apprehended fugitives: in the two years following the amendment the number of located fugitives increased from 1,418 to 2,514. [12]

Although the Fugitive Felon Act de jure applies to all state felonies, including parental kidnapping, the United States Department of Justice de facto set an exception for such cases until the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act was passed in 1980. The PKPA explicitly stated that the Fugitive Felon Act applied to parental kidnapping cases. [13]

In the courts

In 1957, the power of the Act was severely restrained when the eastern division of the Northern District of Illinois ruled in United States v. Rappaport that the law only applied to fugitives fleeing a pending prosecution. However, concerns about the Act's power being curtailed were alleviated by two later rulings: both the Second Circuit in United States v. Bando (1957) and the District of Minnesota in United States v. Lupino (1958) ruled that the Act also applied to people fleeing potential prosecution. [14]

The FFA's constitutionality has been challenged several times since its passage, with violations of the Eighth Amendment (claiming that the maximum penalty set out by the Act constituted cruel and unusual punishment), Tenth Amendment (claiming that the law interfered with law enforcement and extradition powers reserved to the states), and Due Process Clause (claiming that the FFA was too ambiguous for an accused to understand) being alleged before federal courts. All such arguments have been dismissed. [15]

Application and enforcement

Under its current wording, the Fugitive Felon Act punishes unlawful flight with a fine and/or a prison sentence of no more than five years. [16] However, sentences under the Act are extremely rare and charges under it are usually dismissed. [17] [13] Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy in 1962 reported that less than 0.005 percent of fugitives arrested under the statute were also prosecuted under it. This is because the main purpose of the law is to facilitate the apprehension of state fugitives and to avoid the need for interstate extradition. [18] [19] The rare cases where prosecution for unlawful flight is sought usually involve multiple federal charges or unusual circumstances, [20] and require written approval from the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, Associate Attorney General, or Assistant Attorney General to be pursued. [21]

State or local authorities seeking federal assistance in apprehending a fugitive who has fled the state can file charges alleging unlawful flight on the fugitive's part. If the charges are approved a warrant is issued, allowing for federal assistance. [22] Although the Act was intended to allow national authorities to use federal removal to quickly send arrested fugitives to the prosecuting state, rendition remains mostly in the hands of the states, with the FFA being a mechanism for federal authorities to conduct arrests. [5]

See also

References and sources

Related Research Articles

A felony is traditionally considered a crime of high seriousness, whereas a misdemeanour is regarded as less serious. The term "felony" originated from English common law to describe an offense that resulted in the confiscation of a convicted person's land and goods, to which additional punishments including capital punishment could be added; other crimes were called misdemeanors. Following conviction of a felony in a court of law, a person may be described as a felon or a convicted felon.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Deadly force</span> Use of force, likely to cause serious bodily injury or death to another person

Deadly force, also known as lethal force, is the use of force that is likely to cause serious bodily injury or death to another person. In most jurisdictions, the use of deadly force is justified only under conditions of extreme necessity as a last resort, when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed.

The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) is the office or official charged with the prosecution of criminal offences in several criminal jurisdictions around the world. The title is used mainly in jurisdictions that are or have been members of the Commonwealth of Nations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bounty hunter</span> Person who catches fugitives for a monetary reward

A bounty hunter is a private agent working for a bail bondsman who captures fugitives or criminals for a commission or bounty. The occupation, officially known as a bail enforcement agent or fugitive recovery agent, has traditionally operated outside the legal constraints that govern police officers and other agents of the state. This is because a bail agreement between a defendant and a bail bondsman is essentially a civil contract that is incumbent upon the bondsman to enforce. As a result, bounty hunters hired by a bail bondsman enjoy significant legal privileges, such as forcibly entering a defendant's home without probable cause or a search warrant; however, since they are not police officers, bounty hunters are exposed to legal liabilities from which agents of the state are protected, as these immunities enable police to perform their functions effectively without fear of lawsuits. Everyday citizens approached by a bounty hunter are neither required to answer their questions nor allowed to be detained. Bounty hunters are typically independent contractors paid a commission of the total bail amount that is owed by the fugitive; they provide their own professional liability insurance and only get paid if they are able to find the "skip" and bring them in.

A citizen's arrest is an arrest made by a private citizen – that is, a person who is not acting as a sworn law-enforcement official. In common law jurisdictions, the practice dates back to medieval England and the English common law, in which sheriffs encouraged ordinary citizens to help apprehend law breakers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Prosecutor</span> Legal profession

A prosecutor is a legal representative of the prosecution in states with either the common law adversarial system or the civil law inquisitorial system. The prosecution is the legal party responsible for presenting the case in a criminal trial against the defendant, an individual accused of breaking the law. Typically, the prosecutor represents the state or the government in the case brought against the accused person.

False arrest, unlawful arrest or wrongful arrest is a common law tort, where a plaintiff alleges they were held in custody without probable cause, or without an order issued by a court of competent jurisdiction. Although it is possible to sue law enforcement officials for false arrest, the usual defendants in such cases are private security firms.

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that United States federal courts were required to abstain from hearing any civil rights tort claims brought by a person who is currently being prosecuted for a matter arising from that claim.

Misprision of felony is a form of misprision, and an offence under the common law of England that is no longer active in many common law countries. Where it was or is active, it is classified as a misdemeanor. It consists of failing to report knowledge of a felony to the appropriate authorities. Exceptions were made for close family members of the felon and where the disclosure would tend to incriminate the felon himself of that offence or another.

In law, rendition is a "surrender" or "handing over" of persons or property, particularly from one jurisdiction to another. For criminal suspects, extradition is the most common type of rendition. Rendition can also be seen as the act of handing over, after the request for extradition has taken place.

In the United States, extradition law is a collection of federal laws that regulate extradition. Extradition law in the United States is law concerning extradition formal process by which a fugitive found in the United States is surrendered to another country or state for trial, punishment, or rehabilitation. For foreign countries, the extradition process is regulated by treaty and conducted between the federal government of the United States and the government of a foreign country. International extradition is considerably different from interstate or intrastate extradition. If requested by the charging state, US states and territories must extradite anyone charged with a felony, misdemeanor, or even petty offense in another US state or territory, even if the offense is not a crime in the custodial state. The federal government of the United States is a separate jurisdiction from the states with limited scope, but has nationwide law enforcement presence.

In the United States, the right to keep and bear arms is modulated by a variety of state and federal statutes. These laws generally regulate the manufacture, trade, possession, transfer, record keeping, transport, and destruction of firearms, ammunition, and firearms accessories. They are enforced by state, local and the federal agencies which include the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

A criminal defense lawyer is a lawyer specializing in the defense of individuals and companies charged with criminal activity. Some criminal defense lawyers are privately retained, while others are employed by the various jurisdictions with criminal courts for appointment to represent indigent persons; the latter are generally called public defenders. The terminology is imprecise because each jurisdiction may have different practices with various levels of input from state and federal law or consent decrees. Some jurisdictions use a rotating system of appointments, with judges appointing a private practice attorney or firm for each case.

Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82 (1985), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that, because of the doctrine of "dual sovereignty", the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution does not prohibit one state from prosecuting and punishing somebody for an act of which they had already been convicted of and sentenced for in another state.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federal crime in the United States</span> Actions made illegal by Congress

In the United States, a federal crime or federal offense is an act that is made illegal by U.S. federal legislation enacted by both the United States Senate and United States House of Representatives and signed into law by the president. Prosecution happens at both the federal and the state levels and so a "federal crime" is one that is prosecuted under federal criminal law and not under state criminal law under which most of the crimes committed in the United States are prosecuted.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">California Department of Justice</span> Statewide investigative law enforcement agency

The California Department of Justice is a statewide investigative law enforcement agency and legal department of the California executive branch under the elected leadership of the California Attorney General (AG) which carries out complex criminal and civil investigations, prosecutions, and other legal services throughout the US state of California. The department is equivalent to the State Bureau of Investigation in other states.

In common law, the principle of prosecutorial discretion allows public prosecutors a wide latitude to decide whether or not to charge a person for a crime, and which charges to file. A similar principle in continental law countries is called the principle of opportunity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act</span>

The International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act 1993 (IPKCA) is a United States federal law. H.R. 3378, approved December 2, was assigned Public Law No. 103-173 and signed as Public Law 103-322 by President Bill Clinton on September 2, 1993. This law makes it a federal crime to remove a child from the United States or retain a child outside the United States with the intent to obstruct a parent's custodial rights, or to attempt to do so This crime is punishable by up to three years in prison. The law provides an affirmative defense where the abducting parent acted pursuant to a valid court order obtained under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction And Enforcement Act, or where the abducting parent was fleeing domestic violence, or where the failure to return the child resulted from circumstances beyond the taking parent's control and the taking parent made reasonable efforts to notify the left behind parent within 24 hours and returned the child as soon as possible. Since its enactment, the law has only been used in a very small minority of international child abduction cases prompting parents of internationally abducted children to claim an abuse of or prosecutorial discretion on the part of federal prosecutors.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Travel Act</span>

The Travel Act or International Travel Act of 1961, 18 U.S.C. § 1952, is a Federal criminal statute which forbids the use of the U.S. mail, or interstate or foreign travel, for the purpose of engaging in certain specified criminal acts.

On October 17, 1871, U.S. President Ulysses Grant declared nine South Carolina counties to be in active rebellion, and suspended habeas corpus. The order allowed federal troops, under the command of Major Lewis Merrill, to execute mass-arrests and begin the process of crushing the South Carolina Ku Klux Klan in federal court. Merrill reported 169 arrests in York County before January 1872. Numerous Klansmen fled the state, and more were quieted by fear of prosecution. Nearly 500 men surrendered to Merrill voluntarily, gave confessions or evidence, and were released. At the Fourth Federal Circuit Court session in Columbia, South Carolina beginning November 1871, United States District Attorney David T. Corbin and South Carolina Attorney General Daniel H. Chamberlain convicted 5 Klansmen in trial court, and secured convictions based on confession from 49 others. In the next Fourth Federal Circuit Court session in Charleston, South Carolina in April 1872, Corbin convicted 86 more Klansmen. Klan activities vanished while prosecutions were ongoing and publicized, but, by the end of 1872, federal will dissolved in the face of waning Republican support for Reconstruction. At the end of 1872 some 1,188 Enforcement Act cases remained to be tried. White Northern interests began to seek a more conciliatory relationship with Southern states, and lamented Southern papers' exaggerated tales of "bayonet rule." During the summer of 1873, President Grant announced a policy of clemency for those Klansmen who had not yet been tried, and pardon for those who had. The remaining cases were not tried, and prosecutions under the Enforcement Acts were all but abandoned after 1874.

References

  1. ↑ Twomey, John J.; Laniewski, Susan A. (Fall 1982). "The United States Marshals Service Role in the Attorney General's War on Violent Crime". The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 73 (3): 1014. doi:10.2307/1143183. JSTOR   1143183.
  2. ↑ Criminal Justice - Who Should Be Responsible for State Fugitives -- the FBI or U.S. Marshals? (Report). General Accounting Office. September 1986. p. 12. NCJ   103189.
  3. ↑ Wash. U. 1964, p. 355.
  4. ↑ Wash. U. 1964, p. 358.
  5. 1 2 Resch, Tracy W. (1972). "The Scope of Federal Criminal Jurisdiction under the Commerce Clause". University of Illinois Law Forum. 1972 (4): 808. – via  HeinOnline (subscription required)
  6. ↑ Miller, Herbert J. Jr. (1963). "The "Travel Act": A New Statutory Approach to Organized Crime in the United States". Duquesne Law Review. 1 (1): 182.
  7. 1 2 Toy, Harry S.; Shepherd, Edmund E. (October 1934). "The Problem of Fugitive Felons and Witnesses". Law and Contemporary Problems. 1 (4): 415. doi:10.2307/1189657. JSTOR   1189657.
  8. ↑ 1934  Congressional Record, Vol. 80, Page  S5737 (March 29, 1934)
  9. ↑ 1934  Congressional Record, Vol. 80, Page  S9006 (May 17, 1934)
  10. ↑ "LEGISLATIVE SUMMARY: JUDICIAL". JFK Library. John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum. n.d. Archived from the original on March 7, 2023. Retrieved May 23, 2023.
  11. ↑ Schwartz, David G. (September 2010). "Not undertaking the almost-impossible task: The 1961 Wire Act's development, initial applications, and ultimate purpose". Gaming Law Review and Economics: Regulation, Compliance, and Policy. 14 (7): 537. doi:10.1089/glre.2010.14708.
  12. ↑ Hoover, J. Edgar (August 1964). "Message from the Director". FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. 33 (8): 1–2. – via  HeinOnline (subscription required)
  13. 1 2 Hoff, Patricia (June 1982). "Use of the Federal Parental Kidnapping Law". Clearinghouse Review. 15 (2): 139–140. – via  HeinOnline (subscription required)
  14. ↑ Bare 1960, p. 162.
  15. ↑ Wash. U. 1964, pp. 365–366.
  16. ↑ 18 U.S.C.   § 1073
  17. ↑ Bare 1960, pp. 164–165.
  18. ↑ Kennedy, Robert F. (October 1962). "Three Weapons against Organized Crime". Crime & Delinquency. 8 (4): 324. doi:10.1177/001112876200800401.
  19. ↑ Bare 1960, p. 161.
  20. ↑ Wash. U. 1964, p. 363.
  21. ↑ "9-69.460 - Federal Information; Indictment; Removal —Approval Required". Justice Manual. United States Department of Justice. January 2020. Archived from the original on March 18, 2023. Retrieved June 4, 2023.
  22. ↑ Leonardo, Jennifer Toritto (January 2018). "International Parental Kidnapping: An Overview of Federal Resources to Assist Your Investigation and Prosecution". Department of Justice Journal of Federal Law and Practice. 66 (1): 163. – via  HeinOnline (subscription required)

General sources

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.