Detainer

[2] The Supreme Court of the United States has held that the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (1970)[3] allows for a trial of any untried indictment, information, or complaint within 180 days.This creates a situation that is the opposite of what the Interstate Agreement was intended to do: The Agreement is based on a legislative finding that "charges outstanding against a prisoner, detainers based on untried indictments, information or complaints, and difficulties in securing speedy trial of persons already incarcerated in other jurisdictions, produce uncertainties which obstruct programs of prisoner treatment and rehabilitation."In many jurisdictions he is not eligible for parole; there is little hope for his release after an optimum period of training and treatment, when he is ready for return to society with an excellent possibility that he will not offend again.[10] In the 2014 case Miranda-Olivares v. Clackamas County, United States magistrate judge Janice M. Stewart of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon ruled that immigration detainers violate detainees' Fourth Amendment rights and are merely requests that are not legally binding.[11] In July 2017, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court unanimously held that the commonwealth's law enforcement could not hold a prisoner solely on the authority of an ICE detainer.
personal propertyprisoncriminal lawSupreme Court of the United StatesU.S. Marshalsprobationrevocationindictmentsspeedy trialjurisdictionsIllegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996U.S. Immigration and Customs EnforcementUnited States magistrate judgeUnited States District Court for the District of OregonFourth AmendmentMassachusetts Supreme Judicial CourtSecure CommunitiesPriority Enforcement ProgramUnited States v. Josephpublic domainChisholm, HughEncyclopædia BritannicaHarv. L. Rev.