Part III
STATUTORY AND ADMINISTRATIVE
LAW, JAILS, JUVENILES,
PRIVATIZATION, AND OTHER SPECIAL
ISSUES IN CORRECTIONS
Chapter 18 – Statutory and
Administrative Law

Introduction: This chapter looks at
other sources of law, outside the
Constitution, that will be of most
concern to corrections workers and to
offenders in the correctional system
Chapter Outline






The Hierarchy of Laws in the United
States
Interstate Compacts and Uniform Laws
State and Local Laws, Regulations, and
Policies
The Federal Bureau of Prisons
State and Local Corrections
Accreditation
The Hierarchy of Laws in the
United States

U.S. Constitution – supreme law of
the country


Constitution, federal laws, and
treaties – supreme law of the land
Take precedence over state laws
when there is a conflict
The Hierarchy of Laws in the
United States: cont’d

Congress only has authority provided
to it by Constitution
 All other matters are left to state
authority (Tenth Amendment)
Interstate Compacts and
Uniform Laws

States may not enter agreements or
compacts with other states without
Congressional consent (U.S.
Constitution, Article 1, Section 10)
Interstate Compacts and
Uniform Laws: cont’d

Congress has given its consent for
states to form
 Cooperative efforts in crime
prevention and
 Criminal law enforcement and
procedures
Interstate Compacts and
Uniform Laws: cont’d

The Interstate Agreement on Detainers
(IAD) is an example


One state wants custody of person being
held in another state
State files detainer with the custodian
holding that person, requesting to be
notified before the offender is released
Interstate Compacts and
Uniform Laws: cont’d

Once the detainer is filed,
 The holding state (custodian) is obliged
to notify the requesting state prior to
the inmate’s release
 An inmate may request prompt
production for disposition of the charges
 If such a request is made, requesting
state takes the inmate to the charging
jurisdiction
Interstate Compacts and
Uniform Laws: cont’d
Inmate remains in custody of sending
state during this time (sentence
continues to run)
 Inmate must be brought to trial by
requesting state within 180 days of
the inmate’s request
 Charges are dismissed if there is no
trial by that time
 Inmate is returned to sending state
where he was serving his sentence

Interstate Compacts and
Uniform Laws: cont’d

IAD has benefits for both government
and inmate
 Easier process for requesting state to
obtain defendant for prosecution
 Provides inmate opportunity to get
rid of detainers, the presence of
which could affect current
confinement status
Interstate Compacts and
Uniform Laws: cont’d

Alabama v. Bozeman (2001) – example of
benefit to the inmate
 Bozeman in federal prison, and had state
charge
 State officials sought custody of him – for
arraignment and appointment of counsel
 Bozeman sent to Alabama, spent day in
court, and sent back to Federal custody
 Following month back to Alabama for trial
Interstate Compacts and
Uniform Laws: cont’d
Inmate’s counsel filed for dismissal under IAD,
article IV(e)
 Section provides for dismissal if trial is not held
on any indictment, information, or complaint
prior to the inmate’s return to the original place
of confinement (here, federal custody)
 Bozeman was convicted in state – even though
the IAD provision had not been met
 U.S. Supreme Court held that the literal
language of the statute was absolute – the
conviction did not stand

Interstate Compacts and
Uniform Laws: cont’d

In New York v. Hill (2000), the Court
approved a waiver of the “absolute”
language
 In this case, Hill’s counsel agreed, at a
court hearing to set the trial date, to a
date outside the 180-day period
 Inmate filed for dismissal of the charges
prior to trial, but after the 180-day
period
Interstate Compacts and
Uniform Laws: cont’d
Court held this wasn’t an issue that Hill
must personally make an informed
waiver – adding that his lawyer has,
“and must have” – full authority to
manage the conduct of the trial
 Hill’s conviction was upheld

Interstate Compacts and
Uniform Laws: cont’d

Uniform Criminal Extradition Act –
Article IV, Section 2 “extradition clause”
provides



A person who is charged with a crime in
one state
And who flees to another state
Must on demand of the executive authority
of the state from which he has fled
Interstate Compacts and
Uniform Laws: cont’d



Be delivered to the state with jurisdiction
over the alleged crime
Federal rules are in 18 USC §§ 3181-3196
Federal government handles requests for
returns of a person who has fled to a
foreign country
 A treaty between the two nations is
needed for transfer
Interstate Compacts and
Uniform Laws: cont’d

In Cuyler v. Adams (1981) the Court
looked at the somewhat competing aspects
of the IAD and the Extradition Act
 New Jersey prosecutor, under the IAD,
moved to bring Adams who was
confined in Pennsylvania, to New Jersey
for trial
 Adams objected, claiming he was
entitled to a hearing under the
Extradition Act
Interstate Compacts and
Uniform Laws: cont’d

Court held rights and protections of the
Extradition Act, specifically the right to a
hearing before transfer, were reserved
for the prisoner
Interstate Compacts and
Uniform Laws: cont’d
If inmate requested transfer under IAD,
that inmate is deemed to have waived
transfer, and no hearing is needed
 If prosecutor requests and inmate does
not waive, Article IV of IAD provides
that the prisoner retains any right he
may have to contest legality of transfer
to the requesting state
 Thus, inmate had right given in the
Extradition Act to contest transfer

Interstate Compacts and
Uniform Laws: cont’d

New Mexico v. Reed (1998) involved
interstate extradition of a parole violator




In 1993 Ortiz, after being told by Ohio
officials that his 1992 parole was going to be
revoked, fled to New Mexico
Ohio sought his extradition. Ortiz opposed,
filing a writ of habeas corpus
Inmate claimed he was not a fugitive for
purpose of extradition, but fled under duress
Claimed he would be subject to physical
harm if returned to an Ohio prison
Interstate Compacts and
Uniform Laws: cont’d



Lower court granted the writ, holding Ortiz
was not a fugitive, but was a “refugee from
injustice”
Lower court held that his duress over fear
of bodily harm negated his fugitive status
U.S. Supreme Court disagreed – held that
New Mexico had made determinations it
was not entitled to make on an extradition
matter – Ortiz had to be returned to Ohio
Interstate Compacts and
Uniform Laws: cont’d

The Interstate Compact for Transfer
of Prisoners (Interstate Corrections
Compact) – provides the
procedures for transfers of inmates
between jurisdictions
Interstate Compacts and
Uniform Laws: cont’d

The Uniform Act for Out-of-State Parolee
Supervision – all states have enacted




By the Act’s terms, parolees may go to another
state to live (with prior permission)
Once transfer is approved, receiving state
assumes supervision, under conditions set by the
sending state
Officers of the sending state may enter the
receiving state to retake custody when
appropriate
No requirement for formal extradition proceedings
Interstate Compacts and
Uniform Laws: cont’d


The Uniform Juvenile Court Act – provides
procedures for cooperation between juvenile
courts & juvenile agencies in different states
The Uniform Victims of Crime Act – concerns
victims’ rights in criminal justice proceedings


Authorizes compensation of victims injured
during the commission of crimes
Provides for monetary restitution for victims’
losses by criminal defendants convicted of
committing crimes
State and Local Laws,
Regulations and Policies:

All levels of government have an
executive authority to enforce laws


May include, depending on jurisdiction,
sheriffs, mayors, elected county
executives and others
The various types of government
overlap and interact in a variety of
complex ways
State and Local Laws,
Regulations and Policies: cont’d

Focus in this section is generalities – there is
no one system of state and local government
in the United States



There are laws, usually called ordinances in
localities – enacted by legislature
There are also regulations, rules, and policies
adopted by various government levels
At the federal level, agencies may be given
authority to adopt rules and regulations
State and Local Laws,
Regulations and Policies: cont’d



Rules are the detailed laws of most
agencies – are considered to have
authority and effect of the statutory law
that authorized the agency to issue
them
Can be either broad or limited
Federal rules are found in the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR)
State and Local Laws,
Regulations and Policies: cont’d


Most agencies also have internal policies –
governing day-to-day operations
Distinction between rules and policies rules should be issued when they



Affect the conduct of private citizens
When they require certain actions to be
taken, or
When they incorporate penalties and other
enforcement procedures for citizen actions
or inactions
State and Local Laws,
Regulations and Policies: cont’d


Rules may be issued for public comment – if
federal, the rules are published in the
Federal Register
 Following a period of consideration, final
rules are adopted and published, and
 Codified in the CFR
Policies also needed to cover such matters
as personnel, business operations and other
internal guidance to staff
The Federal Bureau of Prisons
(BOP)



Created by Congress – it is part of the
Department of Justice
BOP is charged with safekeeping and
care of federal inmates (18 USC 4042)
Over 100 federal facilities, and 155,000
inmates
The Federal Bureau of Prisons
(BOP): cont’d

Facilities include



Detention centers – to primarily hold
pretrial inmates, one houses immigration
detainees
Minimum, including prison camps, to high
security (penitentiaries)
Administrative facilities, such as medical
centers and a “super-max”
The Federal Bureau of Prisons
(BOP): cont’d


BOP legal authority is set forth in 18 USC statutes legislate such matters as
 Good-time allowances
 Parole eligibility
 Establishment of prison industries
 Providing medical care
 Providing other programs – such as education,
vocational training, and rehabilitative services
Congress provides funding for BOP
The Federal Bureau of Prisons
(BOP): cont’d

BOP rules are published in the Federal Register
and codified in Title 28 CFR
 Rules cover the “core” policies and procedures,
such as inmate classification, programs,
discipline, contact with the community, and
medical care
 Public, including inmates and other interested
persons and organizations, are invited to
comment
 After consideration of the comments, final rules
are published and codified
The Federal Bureau of Prisons
(BOP): cont’d

BOP also publishes Program
Statements, which provide
implementing policies


Program statements govern the affairs of
the agency nationwide
Institutions may issue Institution
Supplements – sets local procedures
State and Local Corrections



Same sort of legal framework, similar to BOP
 Authorizing statute establishing agency
 Other statutes authorize programs, activities,
and services
State legislature provides funds for operations of
corrections agency
As corrections agencies get smaller, down to city,
county, and town level, complexity of rules
diminish, and there are fewer of them
State and Local Corrections

At all levels, good to invite local and
nearby judges, and members of their
staff, to tour the facility


Provides opportunity to see what the
facility is like, and not to rely on newspaper
or other sources
Good means to educate, could counter
other information (such as those from
media stories, inmate complaints)
Accreditation

American Correctional Association
(ACA) – leading professional
association in the corrections
field; established in 1870
Accreditation: cont’d

Serves as umbrella organization for entire
corrections professions – many affiliations







Jails
Community corrections
Probation and parole authorities
Adult corrections administrators
Juvenile and youth agencies
State corrections associations
International affiliations
Accreditation: cont’d

ACA issued the first set of accreditation
standards in 1977 – for adult
correctional institutions


Were, and still are, administered by the
Commission on Accreditation for
Corrections (CAC)
CAC is independent offshoot of the ACA
Accreditation: cont’d

Factors pushing ACA to accreditation
process:



There was a need for agreed-upon standards
Corrections was best place for standards to
be set, as opposed to outside efforts for
reforms of all kinds
Recognition of the growing involvement of
courts in correctional matters, with a
recognition that it was best for corrections to
“set its own house in order”
Accreditation: cont’d


Belief that most courts would appreciate
and might even defer to the standards
Standards and auditing process would
provide corrections professionals with
comprehensive reports and guidelines to
inform governmental authorities about
agency needs
Accreditation: cont’d

Process was set to establish and, just
as important, to modify standards


ACA Standards Committee reviews
along with CAC
Review is based on changing practices,
case law, and agency experiences
Accreditation: cont’d


Approved standards reflect views of
correctional practitioners, architects,
medical and legal experts
Input and recommendations are sought
from the involved parties and other
interested persons or organizations
Accreditation: cont’d

Various sets of standards, covering both
adults and juveniles






Administration of correctional agencies and
institutions
Community residential services
Boot camp programs
Detention facilities
Probation and parole
Health care
Accreditation: cont’d






Correctional industries
Training
Electronic monitoring
Day treatment
Aftercare services and
Food service programs
Accreditation: cont’d

For many years there were 3 levels of
standards:



Essential – 100% had to be met to achieve
accreditation - dealing with conditions that
could affect life, health, or safety of
offenders, staff, or the public
Important – 90% had to be met
Desirable – 80% had to be met
Accreditation: cont’d

Currently, there are two levels:


Mandatory – requires 100% compliance
Nonmandatory – requires at least 90%
compliance
Accreditation: cont’d

Examples:

4-4206 – (Mandatory) Written policy, procedure,
and practice restrict the use of physical force to
instances of justifiable self-defense, protection of
others, protection of property, prevention of
escapes, and to maintain or regain control, and
then only as a last resort and in accordance with
appropriate statutory authority. In no event is
physical force justifiable as punishment. A written
report is prepared following all uses of force and
is submitted to administrative staff for review
Accreditation: cont’d

4-4457 – (Nonmandatory) – Written policy,
procedure, and practice provide that the
security and program determinations
necessary for any individual to be eligible
for industries work are made by the
classification committee
Accreditation: cont’d

Steps for the accreditation process:



Agency manager wishes to become accredited
(program is voluntary) and contacts CAC
CAC conducts initial review, sends papers to
begin process
Agency may request pre-audit assessment –
process helps agency staff determine level of
compliance prior to actual audit, and identifies
possible problem areas
Accreditation: cont’d



Institution does its own self-evaluation to
determine compliance, attaches documents
in support of this, and drafts plans to
correct any deficiencies
Once required levels of compliance
achieved, agency can request an audit to
verify compliance
Audit team visits facility – team consists of
persons trained for that type facility
Accreditation: cont’d




Team reviews records, does first-hand
observations, and interviews staff and
inmates
At close of audit, team meets with Warden
and goes over findings
Each member of team prepares an audit
report – team chair coordinates and
summarizes
CAC has regular meetings to publicly review
audit results
Accreditation: cont’d


Certificates of accreditation are given to
those agencies meeting standards
Those with deficiencies may work to
correct them, and apply for reconsideration
Accreditation: cont’d

Accreditation lasts for three years - during
this period, agencies submit
 Annual certification statements, confirming
compliance
 Progress on completing plans of action
 Events which may affect accreditation, and
 Written responses to public criticism,
notoriety or complaints about agency activity
that suggest a failure to maintain compliance
Accreditation: cont’d

More than 1,500 correctional facilities and
programs are involved in accreditation
 Approximately 80% of all state
correctional agencies and youth services
are active participants, as well as the
 Federal Bureau of Prisons, and
 The private sector in corrections
Accreditation: cont’d

CAC standards are not the same as legal
standards, especially constitutional
requirements

Courts review prison conditions to see whether
constitutional standards are met

If constitutional standards have not been
established, the court can then address that
particular constitutional provision and how it
should be applied in a prison situation
Accreditation: cont’d

Professional standards, by contrast, are
based on commonly accepted levels of
performance in every area of prison
management and operation



They are not tied to specific constitutional
language
Professional standards must never fall below
the court standards
In most areas, professional standards go
beyond court requirements
Accreditation: cont’d

Professional standards do have benefits:
 If done right, will incorporate at least the
minimums set by court rulings
 Can assist in convincing a court that the
particular program or activity is run
professionally
 The courts have frequently looked at the
standards in order to learn the current
expectations for managing particular areas
of corrections
Accreditation: cont’d


Less frequently, courts will incorporate
these professional standards as guidance
for what the courts will require
Or will adopt ACA standards as part of a
court order or consent decree to correct
specific violations after the court has found
certain conditions or programs to be
independently deficient under legal
standards of review