Under 18 U.S.C. § 983(g) a claimant may petition the court to determine whether a civil forfeiture is constitutionally excessive. The court compares the forfeiture to the gravity of the offense giving rise to it. The claimant must establish gross disproportionality by a preponderance of the evidence at a hearing without a jury, and if the standard is met the court reduces or eliminates the forfeiture to avoid violating the Excessive Fines Clause.
Provisional arrest is authorized by treaty for urgent cases where waiting for the full documentary request would risk flight. A federal complaint under oath supports a warrant, and the requesting state must transmit the formal request within the treaty's stated period. Release on expiry does not bar re-arrest once the papers arrive, and bail in extradition requires a showing of special circumstances.
A child's age is part of the objective custody analysis when it was known or apparent, so a setting that would not confine an adult can be custodial for a minor. Warnings must be delivered in comprehensible terms. California, Washington and North Carolina go further and condition any admissible waiver on consultation with counsel or the presence of a parent, and each attaches a different remedy for a violation.
Federal law permits the defendant or the government to move for a competency hearing at any time after prosecution begins and before sentencing, and requires the court to order a hearing on its own motion where there is reasonable cause. A trial court that ignores evidence raising a bona fide doubt commits constitutional error. California suspends all criminal proceedings once the inquiry begins, and the resulting delay is excludable under the Speedy Trial Act.
Reasonable suspicion and probable cause are both practical, non-technical standards resting on the totality of the circumstances, and both sit below certainty and below a preponderance of the evidence. Reasonable suspicion supports a brief investigative detention and, on a further showing, a protective frisk. Probable cause supports an arrest, the issuance of a warrant, and a warrantless search of a vehicle. Neither standard has a numeric threshold, and courts have refused to supply one.
A modified sentence replaces the original figure only where the modification rests on a defect in the underlying proceeding: an illegal term, a miscalculated range, a procedural error at the hearing. A reduction granted because the term has become burdensome, because the defendant behaved well, or because the original figure carries a collateral consequence is treated as leniency and leaves the original figure standing. The ground the order recites, not its effect, decides which it is.
The deportability ground for multiple turpitude offenses reaches a client convicted of two or more such crimes not arising out of a single scheme of criminal misconduct, and it applies whether or not the convictions were entered in one trial. The agency reads the single scheme clause to cover one uninterrupted episode. Several circuits read it to cover offenses planned together and carried out under a common plan, so the same disposition can produce different answers.
Three enumerated categories turn on whether loss exceeded a statutory figure rather than on the sentence imposed. The restitution amount ordered at sentencing is part of the judgment and is routinely treated afterward as proof of that loss, even where the parties agreed to it for convenience or to cover conduct in dismissed counts. Separating loss attributable to the count of conviction from restitution agreed across a broader course of conduct is a drafting task, not an accounting one.
Federal law commits an incompetent defendant to the custody of the Attorney General for hospitalization for a reasonable period not exceeding four months to determine whether competence is likely to be attained, then for an additional reasonable period if there is a substantial probability. Ohio caps restoration by offense level, from thirty days to three years. Constitutional doctrine limits any commitment to the period reasonably needed to answer the restorability question.
Section 853(e)(1)(A) allows a restraining order on the filing of an indictment or information alleging forfeiture, with no separate showing. Before charges, section 853(e)(1)(B) requires notice, a hearing and findings of substantial probability of success, and the order lasts no more than ninety days. A temporary order may issue ex parte for fourteen days. Section 853(f) supplies a seizure warrant and section 983(j) the civil-side equivalent.
Section 3006A(e) authorizes investigative, expert and other services necessary for adequate representation where the person is financially unable to obtain them. The application may be made ex parte and heard ex parte, so the request does not disclose the theory of the defense. Compensation is capped at an amount the court may exceed on certification approved by the chief judge of the circuit. Rule 706 supplies a court-appointed route, and Rule 16 governs disclosure once the expert testifies.
A search by school authorities must be justified at its inception and reasonable in scope, measured against the student's age and sex and the nature of the suspected infraction. Statutes in several states codify the standard, declare lockers school property, and bar strip searches outright. Courts remain divided over the standard that governs a school resource officer, and the division tracks whose investigation the search served.
