18 U.S.C. § 3149
Surrender of an offender by a surety
A person charged with an offense, who is released upon the execution of an appearance bond with a surety, may be arrested by the surety, and if so arrested, shall be delivered promptly to a United States marshal and brought before a judicial officer. The judicial officer shall determine in accordance with the provisions of section 3148(b) whether to revoke the release of the person, and may absolve the surety of responsibility to pay all or part of the bond in accordance with the provisions of Rule 46 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The person so committed shall be held in official detention until released pursuant to this chapter or another provision of law.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 39
cases, 1969–2015 · leading case: United States v. Osama Awadallah, 349 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 2003).
United States v. Osama Awadallah, 349 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 2003). “Based on its study of the statutory wording, context, legislative history, and case law, the district court held that “Section 3144 only allows the detention of material witnesses in the pretrial (as opposed to the grand jury) context.” Awadallah III, 202 F.”
United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 U.S. 858 (1982). “At the end of that period, the United States magistrate holds a material witness bail review hearing, pursuant to 18 U. S. C. § 3149 . In the intervening time, counsel for the defendant may interview the witnesses, and determine whether they can provide testimony material to the…”
United States v. Awadallah, 202 F. Supp. 2d 55 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). “[on] a proposal to modernize the pretrial release system in our Federal courts,” Congress passed 18 U.S.C. § 3149 . 18 House Hearings at 15-16.”
Akins v. United States, 679 A.2d 1017 (D.C. 1996). “The Fourth Amendment Claim Appellants Taper and Carrero both assert on appeal that the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures was violated by the acs of the bounty hunter and bondsman who forcibly entered the New York apartment and obtained the…”
Bossin v. Towber, 894 S.W.2d 25 (Tex. App. 1995). “Appellees urge that this same rationale should also apply to this proceeding, even though it is not a criminal case.”
Zed Daniels v. Richard L. Kieser, 586 F.2d 64 (7th Cir. 1978). “On November 4, defendant appeared before Judge Grant in South Bend and told the judge that plaintiff “was attempting to evade service of the subpoena” and persuaded the court to issue a material witness arrest warrant for Daniels under 18 U.S.C. § 3149 . 2 According to the…”
In the Matter of Justin Alexander Marshall Justin Alexander Marshall v. State of Iowa, 805 N.W.2d 145 (Iowa 2011). “216 (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3149 (1970)). This apparent anomaly was cured by Congress with the passage of the current federal witness statute in the Bail Reform Act of 1984, which provides: If it appears from an affidavit filed by a party that the testimony of a person is…”
In Re the United States for a Material Witness Warrant, 213 F. Supp. 2d 287 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). “Set forth below is the first sentence of that predecessor statute, with the differences from the current statute noted in brackets: If it appears by affidavit [rather than “from an affidavit filed by a party”] that the testimony of a person is material in any criminal proceeding…”
In Re Alberto De Jesus Berrios, 706 F.2d 355 (1st Cir. 1983). “The detention itself was based primarily on 18 U.S.C. § 3149 . 1 It is the compliance with that section that appellant questions.”
David Wadkins v. Robert Arnold, & the First Bank & Trust Co., 214 F.3d 535 (1st Cir. 2000). “After describing the difficulties they had encountered in attempting to serve the witness personally, the prosecutor concluded that the facts justified the issuance of a material witness warrant, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3149 (1982) (current version at 18 U.”
United States v. John Anthony Oliver, 683 F.2d 224 (7th Cir. 1982). “1971), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the power to arrest and detain an individual as a material witness is “fairly inferable” from 18 U.S.C. § 3149 and pre-1972 Fed.R.Crim.”
United States v. Cecilio Seijo, 595 F.2d 116 (2d Cir. 1979). “INS takes the position that it has no authority to delay deportation so that an illegal alien can be available in this country to testify; it insists that ordinary material witness procedures be followed with illegal aliens needed to testify.”
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.