For any offense against the United States, the offender may, by any justice or judge of the United States, or by any United States magistrate judge, or by any chancellor, judge of a supreme or superior court, chief or first judge of the common pleas, mayor of a city, justice of the peace, or other magistrate, of any state where the offender may be found, and at the expense of the United States, be arrested and imprisoned or released as provided in chapter 207 of this title, as the case may be, for trial before such court of the United States as by law has cognizance of the offense. Copies of the process shall be returned as speedily as may be into the office of the clerk of such court, together with the recognizances of the witnesses for their appearances to testify in the case.
A United States judge or magistrate judge shall proceed under this section according to rules promulgated by the Supreme Court of the United States. Any state judge or magistrate acting hereunder may proceed according to the usual mode of procedure of his state but his acts and orders shall have no effect beyond determining, pursuant to the provisions of section 3142 of this title, whether to detain or conditionally release the prisoner prior to trial or to discharge him from arrest.
Notes of Decisions
Wright v. Goord, 554 F.3d 255 (2d Cir. 2009).
“Sections 241 , 242, and 18 U.S.C. § 3041 (F). Then security removed Wright, from his room and gave the room to Brandel, and took his cane, and then gave it back to him February 26, 2003.”
People v. McKay, 41 P.3d 59 (Cal. 2002).
· cites it 2× “1435 , citing 18 U.S.C. § 3041 .) [6] Nor does anything in Knowles v.”
United States v. Alvarez-Sanchez, 511 U.S. 350 (1994).
· cites it 2× “Rule 5(a) provides that a person arrested for a federal offense shall be taken "without unnecessary delay" before the nearest federal magistrate, or before a state or local judicial officer authorized to set bail for federal offenses under 18 U. S. C. § 3041 , for a first…”
United States v. Kevin Eugene Wright, 16 F.3d 1429 (6th Cir. 1994).
· cites it 2× “See 18 U.S.C. § 3041 . 6 Because the Di Re rule was based on a statute, not the Constitution, and that statute no longer retains the principle relied on by the Di Re Court, the Court’s statements about using state law to determine the validity of the arrest are no longer…”
Harold B. Dorman v. United States, 435 F.2d 385 (D.C. Cir. 1970).
· cites it 2× “Although 18 U.S.C. § 3041 provides that any justice or judge of the United States, or state judge or mayor of a city, may arrest for any offense against the United States, in practice in this jurisdiction only the U.”
Upshaw v. United States, 335 U.S. 410 (1948).
· cites it 2× “[15] 18 U.S.C. §§ 3041 , 3141; Rules of Criminal Procedure, No.”
United States v. Molina-Gazca, 571 F.3d 470 (5th Cir. 2009).
· cites it 2× “1 But, 18 U.S.C. § 3041 , under the general arrest provisions, would seem to reject an imprisonment-detention distinction by providing that offenders may be “arrested and imprisoned or released as provided in chapter 207 of this title [‘Release and Detention of a Defendant…”
United States v. Rogelio Hernandez, Jr., Also Known as Ro, 281 F.3d 746 (8th Cir. 2002).
“rocedure states, in relevant part, that upon arrest pursuant to a warrant issued upon an indictment: The officer executing the warrant shall bring the arrested person without unnecessary delay before the nearest available federal magistrate judge or, in the event that a federal…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.