I am currently the Extradition Clerk for the United States Attorney’s Office, in the District of Columbia. Whenever a defendant has a valid warrant in another jurisdiction and is arrested in the District of Columbia; I notify the jurisdiction and make pick up arrangements. Each jurisdiction has three business days, excluding holidays and weekends to pick up the wanted person. If the jurisdiction fails to do so, then the person will be released from DC Jail on the fourth day. However, some defendant’s sign a waiver as a condition of their probation or parole, stating that if they are rearrested; they understand that an arrest is a violation of their probation/parole. Thus, the defendant will be detained in jail for 30 days, as a part of the interstate compact agreement. In order for a defendant to be held for 30 days opposed to the three business days, this office has to receive a faxed copy of the signed agreement from the defendant’s probation/parole officer. Once this office receives a copy of the signed waiver, I prepare a motion requesting the Chief Judge of DC Superior Court to accept the 30 day Interstate Compact Agreement verses allowing the defendant to waive extradition. This process is usually smooth when all the players perform their assigned task.

On September 11, 2012, I received an emergency call from the jail stating that a defendant was scheduled to be released from jail however; the wanted jurisdiction called jail records and indicated that the defendant was an Interstate Compact Parolee and was supposed to be held in DC Jail for 30 days. I checked the defendant’s folder and confirmed that I did not receive an Interstate Compact Waiver from the defendant’s parole officer. I contacted the section supervisor and learned that one of my best friends was the defendant’s parole officer. Unfortunately, she forgot to forward me the appropriate paperwork. Needless to say, I had an ethical dilemma.

My dilemma was difficult, I could either hold the defendant in jail and violate his rights for the 30 days by back dating a motion to keep my friend out of trouble or I could release the defendant and explain to the wanted jurisdiction that the criminal justice agencies failed to do their job. I decided to do the right, legal and just thing. Rather than being loyal to my friend and back dating a motion, I explained to jail records that although the defendant is wanted we didn’t file the appropriate paperwork in time. Therefore, we could no longer impede on the defendant’s liberties, which meant we had no other choice than to release him. I explained to my friend the importance of notification and follow-up. She thanked me for the advice and stated that she understood my position. We were both happy that the defendant was not wanted for a heinous crime and agreed to do the right thing to preserve the integrity of our profession.

References
Pollock, P.M. (2012, 2010) Ethical Dilemmas and Decisions In Criminal Justice. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.