Gerstein v. Pugh
420 U.S. 103 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Fourth Amendment requires a timely judicial determination of probable cause as a prerequisite to any extended restraint of liberty following an arrest without a warrant. However, this determination does not require the full panoply of adversary safeguards such as the right to counsel or cross-examination.
Facts:
- In March 1971, respondents Pugh and Henderson were arrested in Dade County, Florida.
- Prosecutors charged both men with several offenses by filing a document called an 'information,' rather than by securing a grand jury indictment.
- Under Florida law at the time, a prosecutor could charge non-capital crimes by information without a prior preliminary hearing or judicial approval.
- The filing of the information by the prosecutor foreclosed an arrested person's right to a preliminary hearing to challenge the basis for the arrest.
- Consequently, Pugh and Henderson were held in pretrial custody for a substantial period based solely on the prosecutor's decision, without any neutral judicial finding of probable cause.
- Pugh was denied bail, and Henderson remained in custody because he was unable to post bond.
Procedural Posture:
- Respondents Pugh and Henderson filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida against Dade County officials, including State Attorney Gerstein.
- The District Court certified the class and held that the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments require a judicial hearing on probable cause for persons arrested and charged by information.
- The District Court ordered the defendants to provide the named plaintiffs with immediate preliminary hearings and to submit a plan for providing such hearings in all future cases.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment, holding that a probable cause hearing was constitutionally required.
- Petitioner Gerstein, the State Attorney, sought and was granted a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Fourth Amendment require a judicial determination of probable cause for the pretrial detention of a person arrested without a warrant, and if so, must this determination be a full, adversary hearing?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Powell
Yes, as to the determination, but no, as to the adversary hearing. The Fourth Amendment requires a timely judicial determination of probable cause as a prerequisite to extended pretrial detention following a warrantless arrest, but this determination does not need to be a full adversary hearing. The Court reasoned that the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable seizures demands that a neutral and detached magistrate, not a prosecutor, make the probable cause determination to justify a significant restraint on liberty. While a police officer's on-the-scene assessment is sufficient for an arrest, the justification for bypassing a magistrate evaporates once the individual is in custody. However, the sole purpose of this hearing is to determine probable cause for detention, not to establish guilt. This limited function, which uses the same standard as an arrest warrant application, can be reliably performed in a non-adversary proceeding based on hearsay and written evidence, and is therefore not a 'critical stage' of the prosecution requiring counsel and other adversarial rights.
Concurring - Justice Stewart
Yes. The Constitution requires a timely judicial determination of probable cause for pretrial detention. The concurring justices agreed that Florida's procedure was unconstitutional and that the respondents were entitled to relief. However, they argued the Court should not have gone further to specify, in the abstract, which procedural protections are not constitutionally required. Justice Stewart expressed concern that the majority's opinion forecloses claims that the traditional requirements of due process apply to pretrial detention and suggests that an incarcerated person receives less procedural protection than individuals in some civil disputes.
Analysis:
This landmark decision established the constitutional requirement for what is now commonly known as a 'Gerstein hearing,' a prompt judicial review of probable cause for all warrantless arrests. The ruling created a crucial procedural safeguard against prolonged illegal detention based solely on the discretion of police or prosecutors. By distinguishing this limited Fourth Amendment hearing from a full, adversarial preliminary hearing, the Court struck a balance between protecting individual liberty and avoiding undue burdens on the criminal justice system. This decision significantly shaped pretrial procedure nationwide, mandating a check by a neutral magistrate on law enforcement's authority to detain individuals.
