Document: 371 U.S. 236 83 S.Ct. 373 9 L.Ed.2d 285 John R. JONES, Petitioner,v.W. K. CUNNINGHAM, Jr., Superintendent of Virginia State Penitentiary. No. 77. Argued Dec. 3, 1962. Decided Jan. 14, 1963. Daniel J. Meador, Charlottesville, Va., for petitioner. Reno S. Harp, III, Richmond, respondent. Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion Court. 1 A United States District Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, U.S.C.A. 2241 to grant a writ habeas corpus 'to prisoner * in custody violation Constitution States.' The question this case is whether state who been placed on parole 'in custody' within meaning section so that Federal hear and determine his charge sentence was imposed Constitution.1 2 In 1953 petitioner convicted court an offense requiring confinement penitentiary, as third such he sentenced serve 10 years penitentiary. 1961 filed petition Eastern Virginia, alleging third-offender based part upon 1946 larceny conviction which invalid because federal constitutional right counsel had denied at trial. dismissed but Appeals Fourth Circuit granted certificate probable cause leave appeal forma pauperis. Shortly before came oral argument paroled by Parole Board. order 'custody control' Board directed him live with aunt uncle LaFayette, Georgia. It provided subject revocation or modification any time could be arrested returned prison cause. Among other restrictions conditions, required obtain permission officer community, change residence, own operate motor vehicle. He further make monthly reports officer, permit visit home place employment time, follow officer's instructions advice. When parole, Penitentiary, only respondent case, asked dismiss moot since no longer custody. Petitioner opposed motion but, view Board, moved add its members respondents. dismissed, holding superintendent control over 'at large parole.' refused respondents they did not have 'physical person were therefore proper parties. 4 Cir., 294 F.2d 608. We certiorari decide parolee entitled invoke 369 809, 82 687, 7 611. 3 jurisdictional statute implements command made available.2 While limiting availability those custody,' does attempt mark boundaries 'custody' nor way than use word limit situations can used. To used test legality given restraint liberty, generally looked common-law usages history both England country.3 England, States, chief seek release persons held actual, physical jail. Yet English courts long recognized remedy even though something less close confinement. For example, King's Bench early 1722 appropriate woman alleged applicant's wife being constrained her guardians stay away from husband against will.4 simply she liberty go where please(d).'5 So also, 1763 require production indentured 18-year-old girl assigned master another man 'for bad purposes.'6 Although report indicates covenants indenture, ordered 'be discharged all restraint, will.'7 And more century ago permitted parent children parent, 'not imprisonment, duress kind.'8 These examples show clearly treated Habeas Corpus Act 1679, 31 Car. II, c. 2—the forerunner acts—as permitting relief jail like 5 Similarly, restricted applicant This itself repeatedly available alien seeking entry into States,9 although cases each free anywhere else world. '(H)is movements,' said, 'are restrained authority may validity exclusion.'10 also consistently regarded lower procedural vehicle questioning induction enlistment military service.11 course, clear cases, it far indeed kind 'present thought required. Again, courts, widely parents disputing fit their child,12 one we us few weeks ago.13 History, usage, precedent doubt that, besides there are restraints man's shared public generally, sufficient English-speaking world support issuance corpus. 6 Respondent strongly urges however numerous will lie prior decisions conclusively released attack proceedings. some relied, completely unconditionally custody;14 obviously controlling here released. Other relied merely dispute between named become particular custody.15 here, last mentioned, when Penitentiary became superintendent's come end, much if resigned position State. But wholly without remedy. His parties squarely raises question, presented our earlier now holds point defend law justifies liberty. provides shall 'into Board,'16 places 'under Board.' fact, well theory,17 involves significant petitioner's sentence, addition generally. confined house, job sufferance officer. cannot drive car permission. must periodically admonished keep good company hours, work regularly, undesirable places, clean, honest, temperate life. faithfully obey these conditions constant fear single deviation, slight, might enough result out very claims Constitution. rearrested believes violated term condition parole,18 thrown back finish serving allegedly few, any, safeguards normally charged crime.19 relevant these20 desirable important parts rehabilitative process; what matters significantly restrain do things country men do. Such help Great Writ. Of always still reach behind walls iron bars. more. never static, narrow, formalistic remedy; scope grown achieve grand purpose—the protection individuals erosion wrongful liaberty. releases immediate imposes confine freedom; statute; prove allegations Constitution, error instead 8 argues left territorial confines district. Ahrens v. Clark, 335 188, 68 1443, 92 L.Ed. 1898 (1948), relies, petitioners detained district originally petition. Rather, controlled decision Ex parte Endo, 323 283, 304—307, 65 208, 219—220, 89 243 (1944), lose removed remained. Here Court, necessary bring final adjudication. reversed remanded directions proceed merits case. Reversed. while pending Appeals. 'The Privilege Writ suspended, unless Cases Rebellion Invasion Safety it.' U.S.Const. Art. I, 9. See, e.g., McNally Hill, 293 131, 136, 55 24, 26, 79 238 (1934); Parks, 93 18, 23 787 (1876). Rex Clarkson, Str. 444, Eng.Rep. 625 (K.B. 1722). Id., 445, Eng.Rep., 625. Delaval, Burr. 1434, 97 913 1763). 1437, 914. Earl Westmeath Countess Westmeath, set reporter's footnote Lyons Blenkin, Jac. 245, 264, 37 842, 848 (Ch. 1821); accord M'Clellan, Dowl. 81 1831). E.g., Brownell Tom Shung, 352 180, 183, 77 252, 254, 225 (1956); Shaughnessy ex rel. Mezei, 345 206, 73 625, 956 (1953); Knauff Shaughnessy, 338 537, 70 309, 94 317 (1950); Jung Ah Lung, 124 621, 626, 663, 665, 591 (1888). supra note 9, 213, 629. 11 Fabiani, 105 F.Supp. 139 (D.C.E.D.Pa.1952); Steinberg Graham, 57 938 (D.C.E.D.Ark.1944). 12 Boardman Boardman, 135 Conn. 124, 138, 62 A.2d 521, 528, 13 A.L.R.2d 295 (1948); Barlow Barlow, 141 Ga. 535, 536—537, S.E. 433, 434, 52 L.R.A.,N.S., 683 (1914); re Swall, 36 Nev. 171, 174, 134 P. 96, 97, (1913) ('the need little consideration lawful asserted retain possession child'). See Hollopeter, Wash. 41, 100 159, 21 L.R.A., N.S., 847 (1909) (husband parents); Chace, 26 R.I. 351, 358, 58 A. 978, 981, 69 L.R.A. 493 (1904) (wife husband's society guardian). Ford Ford, 187, 273 (1962). 14 Parker Ellis, 362 574, 80 909, 963 (1960); Zimmerman Walker, 319 744, 63 1027, 87 1700 (1943); Tornello Hudspeth, 318 792, 990, 1158 (1943). 15 Lynn Downer, 322 756, 64 1263, 88 1585 (1944); Innes Crystal, 755, 1164, 1708 Weber Squier, 315 810, 800, 86 1209 (1942). 16 Va.Code Ann. 53—264. 17 Anderson Corall, 263 193, 196, 44 43, 247 (1923) ('While (parole) amelioration punishment, legal effect imprisonment'); von Hentig, Degrees Violation Graded Remedial Measures, 33 J.Crim.L. & Criminology 363 18 §§ 53—258, 53—259. find 'a violation.' 19 Even requires violate penal laws ordinances, first blush innocuous, occurred. 20 involved appear common ones. Giardini Process, 12—16 (1959).

Category: 0