United States v. Salerno
481 U.S. 739, 107 S.Ct. 2095, 95 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987)
Rule of Law:
The government may constitutionally detain an arrestee prior to trial if it proves by clear and convincing evidence in an adversarial hearing that no release conditions will reasonably assure the safety of the community. Such detention is a regulatory measure, not impermissible punishment, and does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment or the Excessive Bail Clause of the Eighth Amendment.
Facts:
- Anthony Salerno and Vincent Cafaro were charged in a 29-count indictment alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), mail and wire fraud, extortion, and criminal gambling.
- The indictment detailed 35 acts of racketeering, including fraud, extortion, and conspiracy to commit murder.
- The government alleged that Salerno was the 'boss' and Cafaro was a 'captain' in the Genovese crime family of La Cosa Nostra.
- At a hearing, the government presented evidence, including from court-ordered wiretaps, showing that Salerno and Cafaro had engaged in wide-ranging conspiracies using violent methods to support their criminal enterprises.
- The government also proffered testimony from two witnesses who would assert that Salerno had personally participated in two murder conspiracies.
- Salerno presented testimony from character witnesses and a letter from his doctor regarding a serious medical condition.
- Cafaro presented no evidence, characterizing the wiretap conversations as 'tough talk.'
Procedural Posture:
- The government moved for pretrial detention of Anthony Salerno and Vincent Cafaro in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- The District Court held a hearing and granted the government’s motion, ordering the respondents detained after finding clear and convincing evidence of their future dangerousness.
- The respondents appealed the detention order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court, holding that the Bail Reform Act's provision for detention based on future dangerousness was facially unconstitutional as a violation of substantive due process.
- The United States petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
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 Bail Reform Act of 1984, which authorizes pretrial detention of an arrestee based on a judicial finding of future dangerousness, facially violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment or the Excessive Bail Clause of the Eighth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Rehnquist
No, the Bail Reform Act of 1984 is not facially unconstitutional. The Act's provision for pretrial detention based on future dangerousness is a permissible regulatory measure that does not violate the Due Process Clause or the Excessive Bail Clause. The Court reasoned first that the detention is regulatory, not punitive, because Congress's intent was to prevent danger to the community, not to punish, and the detention is not excessive in relation to this goal. Second, the Court held that the government's compelling interest in community safety can outweigh an individual's liberty interest, especially when the Act is narrowly tailored to serious offenses and provides extensive procedural safeguards, including an adversarial hearing, the right to counsel, and a 'clear and convincing evidence' standard. Regarding the Eighth Amendment, the Court concluded that the Excessive Bail Clause does not guarantee a right to bail in all cases but only prohibits bail that is excessive in relation to the interest being protected. Since the government's compelling interest here is community safety, not merely preventing flight, the denial of bail is not 'excessive.'
Dissenting - Justice Marshall
Yes, the Bail Reform Act is unconstitutional. The statute fundamentally subverts the presumption of innocence, which is a core principle of due process. The majority’s distinction between 'regulatory' detention and 'punitive' incarceration is a 'sterile formalism' that redefines punishment to make it constitutionally palatable. By allowing an untried indictment to justify detention based on predicted future crimes, the Act turns the indictment into evidence of guilt and dangerousness, which is contrary to its purpose as a mere finding of probable cause. The Eighth Amendment's prohibition on excessive bail is rendered meaningless if the government can simply deny bail altogether for reasons unrelated to ensuring the accused's presence at trial. The coercive power of such detention is demonstrated by the fact that one respondent was released only after agreeing to become a government informant, showing the potential for abuse.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
Yes, the provision of the Bail Reform Act allowing pretrial detention based on future dangerousness is unconstitutional. The Act improperly allows a pending indictment to be used as a basis for evaluating an individual's risk to the community. If the evidence of imminent danger is strong enough to warrant preventive detention, it should be sufficient on its own, regardless of whether the person has been charged with a separate offense. It is unrealistic to assume that the danger only materializes after indictment or that it would vanish upon acquittal. This reliance on the indictment is inconsistent with the presumption of innocence and the principles of the Eighth Amendment.
Analysis:
This landmark decision solidified the constitutionality of preventive detention, shifting the traditional focus of bail from merely ensuring a defendant's appearance at trial to protecting community safety. By classifying such detention as regulatory rather than punitive, the Court significantly expanded the government's authority to incarcerate individuals who have not been convicted of a crime. The ruling established that an individual's fundamental liberty interest can be subordinated to the government's compelling interest in preventing crime, provided there are sufficient procedural safeguards. This precedent has had a profound impact on pretrial practices, granting federal prosecutors a powerful tool to detain defendants deemed dangerous, particularly in cases involving organized crime, terrorism, and serious violent offenses.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: United States v. Salerno (1987)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"