Opinion ID: 470010
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Validity of Preventive Detention

Text: 33 Since appellants' challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings of dangerousness are without merit, the validity of preventive detention under section 3142(e) must be faced. That is an issue not yet considered in this Circuit. See United States v. Colombo, supra, 777 F.2d at 101 n. 2. Before facing the constitutional challenges to the provision, we consider whether section 3142(e) can reasonably be construed to prohibit detention for dangerousness for the length of time these appellants have been confined.
34 The Bail Reform Act itself contains no time limits on the period of detention. In Colombo we observed that Congress was relying on the time limits of the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3161 et seq. (1982), to provide the limits on pretrial detention. That Act sets 90 days as the normal limit for pretrial detention, id. Sec. 3164(b), but specifically provides that the periods of delay enumerated in section 3161(h) are excluded in computing the time limit set by section 3164(b). We note, however, that some statements made during Senate debate on the bill that became the Bail Reform Act lend support to the view that an absolute 90-day limit, without exceptions, was contemplated. Speaking in opposition to an amendment that would have reduced the 90-day limit of section 3164(b) to 60 days, Senator Thurmond told the Senate that the 90 days is the worst case limit, 130 Cong.Rec. S941 (daily ed. Feb. 3, 1984), Senator Laxalt called the 90-day limit the upper bound, id. at S943, and Senator Grassley relied on the 90-day limit to assure his colleagues that no defendant will be detained indefinitely while the processes of justice grind to a halt, id. at S945. 35 However, during this same debate the excludable time provisions of the Speedy Trial act were specifically cited by the proponents of the 60-day amendment to assure the Senate that acceptance of the amendment would not impose an absolute ceiling. Id. at S941 (statement of Senator Specter); id. at S945 (statement of Senator Mitchell). Moreover, the Senate Report explicitly notes that the preventive detention provision that became section 3142(e) did not include the absolute 60-day time limit of the District of Columbia provision, D.C. Code Sec. 23-1322(d)(2)(A) (1973), but instead was governed only by the 90-day limit of the Speedy Trial Act subject to certain periods of excludable delay. S.Rep. No. 225, 98th Cong., 2d Sess. 22 n. 63, reprinted in 1984 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 3182, 3205. 36 It may well be that the Senate did not fully appreciate just how long pretrial detention might last under the exclusions of the Speedy Trial Act, but there can be no serious claim that section 3142(e), as enacted, limits pretrial detention more restrictively than the Speedy Trial Act.
37 We therefore confront the fundamental issue whether the Constitution permits the detention of an adult accused of a crime for the purpose of preventing him from committing other crimes during the interval between his arrest and his trial. Two amendments are pertinent to this issue--the Eighth Amendment prohibiting excessive bail and the Fifth Amendment prohibiting the deprivation of liberty without due process of law. 38 The Eighth Amendment. The literal prohibition of the Eighth Amendment concerns only the amount of bail, a matter not in issue when an arrested person is detained pending trial without any amount of bail being set. Nevertheless, the question remains whether the Eighth Amendment implies a right to have some amount of bail set in every case. Appellants contend that the Bail Clause necessarily carries this implication. It would be illogical, they assert, for the Framers to have forbidden excessive amounts of bail yet permitted this prohibition to be circumvented by not setting bail in any amount. Or, to put the matter another way, failure to set bail must be prohibited because it denies the liberty of an arrested person in precisely the same manner as setting bail in an amount so excessive that it cannot possibly be posted. The argument has surface appeal, but it has already been implicitly rejected in decisions recognizing that bail may be denied where no conditions of release will provide satisfactory assurance of a defendant's presence at trial. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979); United States v. Martir, supra. We agree with the Government that the Eighth Amendment does not imply the existence of an absolute right to bail in all cases. See Carlson v. Landon, 342 U.S. 524, 544-46, 72 S.Ct. 525, 536-37, 96 L.Ed. 547 (1952); United States v. Kostadinov, 721 F.2d 411, 413 (2d Cir.1983) (per curiam). 39 We do not agree, however, with the Government's further contention that the Eighth Amendment, by failing to guarantee a right to bail in all cases, implies a broad authority in Congress to determine the circumstances in which bail may be denied, specifically including the circumstance that a person lawfully arrested is thought to be a danger to the community if released before trial. For this sweeping proposition, the Government relies on the history of bail, attaching special significance to the absence of an unqualified right to bail in capital cases. We agree that the absence of an unqualified right to bail in capital cases is pertinent, but we think that circumstance does not resolve the issue whether bail may be denied, prior to trial, on grounds of dangerousness. If anything, the history of bail suggests that dangerousness is not a permissible ground for pretrial detention. 40 At common law in England pretrial release on bail was a matter within the discretion of judges for all defendants, including those charged with capital offenses. 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries 298 (4th ed.1899); 1 J. Chitty, Criminal Law 93 (London 1816). In this country the First Judiciary Act, drafted by the Framers of the Eighth Amendment, provided a right to bail in all cases except capital offenses, but left bail in those cases to the discretion of the judges. The Act permitted bail to be set in capital cases by the supreme or a circuit court, or by a justice of the supreme court, or a judge of a district court, who shall exercise their discretion therein, regarding the nature and circumstances of the offense, and of the evidence, and the usages of law. Judiciary Act of 1789, ch. 20, 1 Stat. 91. State constitutions also permitted bail in some capital cases, many provisions being modeled after Connecticut's constitution, which provided that all prisoners shall be bailable before conviction except for capital offenses, where the proof is evident, or the presumption great. Conn. Const. art. I, Sec. 14 (1818). Even though the category of capital offenses narrowed, federal law left the matter of bail for the few remaining capital offenses within the discretion of federal judges. See, e.g., United States v. Egorov, 319 F.2d 817 (2d Cir.) (per curiam) (bail for espionage offense denied as a matter of discretion), cert. dismissed, 375 U.S. 926, 84 S.Ct. 329, 11 L.Ed.2d 261 (1963); Fed.R.Crim.P. 46(a)(1) (1946). 41 The historical question is whether the discretionary authority of judges to deny bail in capital cases could be exercised because of the dangerousness of the defendant or only because of a risk of flight, a risk surely increased by the prospect of the death penalty. Former Attorney General Mitchell, arguing in favor of the constitutionality of the preventive detention proposal that ultimately became section 3142(e), has asserted that the eighth amendment when adopted clearly permitted pretrial detention for capital crimes because of danger to the community. Mitchell, Bail Reform and the Constitutionality of Pretrial Detention, 55 Va.L.Rev. 1223, 1230 (1969). No historical materials are cited for this assertion. The New Jersey Supreme Court reached a different conclusion after its survey of the historical materials. The underlying motive for denying bail in the prescribed type of capital offenses is to assure the accused's presence at trial. State v. Konigsberg, 33 N.J. 367, 164 A.2d 740, 743 (1960). The Court also concluded that risk of flight to avoid the death penalty was the explanation why the Framers did not guarantee an absolute right to bail in the Constitution. In a choice between hazarding his life before a jury and forfeiting his or his sureties' property, the framers of the Constitution obviously reacted to man's undoubted urge to prefer the latter. Id. (citation omitted). See also United States v. Edwards, 430 A.2d 1321, 1326 n. 6 (D.C.App.1981) (in banc) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1022, 102 S.Ct. 1721, 72 L.Ed.2d 141 (1982). Commentators have reached the same conclusion. See Tribe, An Ounce of Detention: Preventive Justice in the World of John Mitchell, 56 Va.L.Rev. 370, 377 (1970); Hickey, Preventive Detention and the Crime of Being Dangerous, 58 Geo. L.J. 287, 287 (1969). 42 Since risk of flight has always been at least the dominant, if not exclusive, reason for holding a defendant in lieu of bail, the burden of demonstrating that dangerousness was also a permissible basis for denying bail would seem to be upon those who make this assertion. No materials thus far examined bear out the claim. It seems far more reasonable to think that the lack of an absolute right to bail in 1790 for such capital offenses as counterfeiting stemmed from concern that the defendant would flee to avoid any possibility of the death penalty and not concern that his pretrial release posed a danger to the community. See Federal Crimes Act of 1790, ch. 9, 1 Stat. 112, 115. 43 The conclusions reasonably to be drawn from the historical materials is that the Framers of the Eighth Amendment did not regard bail as an absolute right in all cases, but that they also did not contemplate the denial of bail on grounds of dangerousness. That does not mean that the Eighth Amendment can fairly be construed to prohibit denial of bail on grounds of dangerousness. It does mean, however, that in considering the ultimate issue whether Congress' power to define the categories in which bail is not available includes the power to authorize pretrial detention on grounds of dangerousness, the absence of historical support for the practice in the Anglo-American tradition is of some significance. That ultimate issue arises under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. 44 The Fifth Amendment. We turn then to the issue whether preventive detention of a competent adult for dangerousness is a deprivation of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Obviously there is a deprivation of liberty. Indeed, physical confinement of an individual is the ultimate deprivation of liberty. Of course the right to the enjoyment of liberty from confinement is not absolute. The right may be denied as punishment upon conviction of a crime, and it may be denied in some limited circumstances as regulation, for example, to prevent the spread of contagious disease. The Government does not dispute that detention of a competent adult to prevent the commission of crime may not be imposed as punishment unless there has been an adjudication of guilt. See Bell v. Wolfish, supra. It maintains, however, that the detention authorized by section 3142(e) serves the purposes of regulation, and its constitutionality is therefore to be tested by standards pertinent to regulation rather than to punishment. 45 The Supreme Court has instructed that the initial inquiry in determining whether a statute regulates or punishes concerns the purpose for which the statute was enacted. See Schall v. Martin, 467 U.S. 253, 269, 104 S.Ct. 2403, 2412-13, 81 L.Ed.2d 207 (1984); Bell v. Wolfish, supra, 441 U.S. at 538, 99 S.Ct. at 1873; Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 168-69, 83 S.Ct. 554, 657-68, 9 L.Ed.2d 644 (1963). Of the cited authorities, Schall is most pertinent because it faced the issue of regulation versus punishment in the context of pretrial detention to prevent the commission of future crimes. In finding a regulatory purpose of New York's juvenile preventive detention statute, the Court identified several pertinent factors. First, the Court noted that the detention is strictly limited in time. The maximum possible detention was said to be seventeen days. 1 467 U.S. at 270, 104 S.Ct. at 2413. Second, the Court observed that the relatively mild conditions of confinement reflect[ed] a regulatory purpose. Id. The detained juveniles were confined in either non-secure halfway houses without locks, bars, or security officers, or in secure facilities where the children lived in dormitories, based on age, size, and behavior, wore street clothes, and participated in educational, recreational, and counseling sessions. The Court also noted that the state statute required consideration of the best interests of the child in all proceedings, including detention hearings, N.Y. Fam.Ct. Act Sec. 301.1 (McKinney 1983), that a regulatory purpose has been identified by the authoritative state court construction of the statute, People ex rel. Wayburn v. Schupf, 39 N.Y.2d 682, 385 N.Y.S.2d 518, 350 N.E.2d 906 (1976), and that the laws of all the states authorize preventive detention of juveniles. 46 Analysis of these factors as applied to section 3142(e) places the challenged provision decidedly closer to the punitive side of the line than the New York juvenile detention statute. First, the detention period is not strictly limited in time. As we have seen, the period of detention may extend throughout the full period of pretrial delay permissible under the Speedy Trial Act. That period, though nominally limited to ninety days, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3164(b), can be extended for a variety of reasons. No absolute outer limit is specified, and delays can last for more than a year. In this case detention has already lasted for eight months. Second, the conditions of confinement cannot be characterized as mild. Though the appellants are not confined with sentenced prisoners, 2 some have been housed in administrative detention cells of secure facilities and confined to their cells for twenty-three hours a day. Third, unlike the juvenile statute considered in Schall, section 3142(e) does not purport to require consideration of the best interests of the defendant in the determination of detention. Finally, pretrial preventive detention has never been part of the general American approach to criminal justice. 47 We recognize, of course, that the dominant legislative purpose in enacting section 3142(e) was to safeguard the community from future crimes that the accused person might commit if released. Whether this purpose is sufficient to classify the statute as regulatory is not so clear as the Government contends. The difficulty arises from the undeniable fact that incarceration to protect society from a person's future criminal conduct is regulatory in a sense but at the same time also achieves one of the classic purposes of punishment--incapacitation. Thus, this is not a situation like that encountered in Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, supra, where the adverse action, deprivation of citizenship imposed for remaining outside the country to evade military service, could be argued to have been imposed for the purpose of achieving either the penal effect of deterring misconduct or the regulatory effect of avoiding foreign policy entanglements. 3 Here, the single effect relied on by the Government, prevention of future crime, is evidence of both a regulatory and a penal purpose. As the Supreme Court has observed, One of the reasons society imprisons those convicted of crimes is to keep them from inflicting future harm, but that does not make imprisonment any the less punishment. United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 458, 85 S.Ct. 1707, 1720, 14 L.Ed.2d 484 (1965). 48 Despite the penal effects of pretrial detention imposed upon those deemed dangerous, we are willing to assume that section 3142(e) was enacted by Congress primarily as a regulatory measure and that its constitutionality is to be determined accordingly. Evident throughout the legislative history is congressional concern to view preventive detention as regulation rather than punishment. In particular, Congress was pointedly legislating against the background of the decision of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals in United States v. Edwards, supra, upholding the constitutionality of the District of Columbia preventive detention statute, D.C.Code Sec. 23-1322 (1973). See S.Rep. No. 225, 98th Cong., 2d Sess. 8, reprinted in 1984 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 3182, 3190-91. A predominant regulatory purpose of section 3142(e) has been widely identified. See United States v. Portes, 786 F.2d 758, 762 (7th Cir.1986); United States v. Maull, 773 F.2d 1479, 1485 (8th Cir.1985) (in banc); United States v. Jessup, 757 F.2d 378, 387 (1st Cir.1985). 49 Viewing section 3142(e) as a regulatory measure, we consider whether it comports with the requirements of the Due Process Clause. On this issue a majority of the panel concludes, for different reasons, that the limitations of the Due Process Clause have been exceeded in this case. Chief Judge Feinberg concludes, for reasons set forth in his concurring opinion, that the pretrial detention for dangerousness authorized by section 3142(e), though initially regulatory in nature, has become punitive as applied to Gonzales Claudio and Camacho-Negron, the only defendants detained solely on the ground of dangerousness, because their pretrial detention has now lasted more than eight months. Approaching the problem somewhat differently, I first consider whether section 3142(e) may constitutionally authorize pretrial detention on grounds of dangerousness for any length of time as a regulatory measure. Concluding that it may not, I do not reach the further question as to how long pretrial detention for dangerousness may be imposed before it becomes punishment. The remaining portion of this section sets forth my views on the due process issue. 50 In Schall v. Martin, supra, the Supreme Court began its consideration of the due process issue by comparing the substantiality of the Government interest sought to be advanced by preventive detention with the nature of the liberty interest of those detained. That comparison revealed a weighty governmental interest in protecting society and a substantial, though limited, interest on the part of juveniles in remaining free of state-ordered confinement. Though acknowledging that children have a substantial interest in freedom from institutional confinement, the Court ruled that this interest must be qualified by the recognition that juveniles, unlike adults, are always in some form of custody. 467 U.S. at 265, 104 S.Ct. at 2410 (emphasis added) (citation omitted). This qualified liberty interest of juveniles, the Court concluded, may, in appropriate circumstances, be subordinated to the State's 'parens patriae interest in preserving and promoting the welfare of the child.'  Id. (quoting Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 766, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 1401, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982)). 51 Applying Schall to section 3142(e), one encounters not only the weighty governmental interest in safeguarding the community but also the full liberty interest of competent adults. Schall does not instruct what effect the Due Process Clause has on a preventive detention scheme when two interests of such significance are involved. The Government contends that section 3142(e) is to be upheld simply because preventive detention is a rational means of advancing the compelling state interest in public safety. That cannot be the test for determining the constitutionality of preventive detention. The fallacy of using such a test can be readily seen from consideration of preventive detention as applied to persons not arrested for any offense. It cannot seriously be maintained that under our Constitution the Government could jail people not accused of any crime simply because they were thought likely to commit crimes in the future. Yet such a police state approach would undoubtedly be a rational means of advancing the compelling state interest in public safety. In a constitutional system where liberty is protected both substantively and procedurally by the limitations of the Due Process Clause, a total deprivation of liberty cannot validly be accomplished whenever doing so is a rational means of regulating to promote even a substantial governmental interest. 4 52 Incarcerating dangerous persons not accused of any crime would exceed due process limits not simply for lack of procedural protections. Even if a statute provided that a person could be incarcerated for dangerousness only after a jury was persuaded that his dangerousness had been established beyond a reasonable doubt at a trial surrounded with all of the procedural guarantees applicable to determinations of guilt, the statute could not be upheld, no matter how brief the period of detention. It would be constitutionally infirm, not for lack of procedural due process, but because the total deprivation of liberty as a means of preventing future crime exceeds the substantive limitations of the Due Process Clause. This means of promoting public safety would be beyond the constitutional pale. The system of criminal justice contemplated by the Due Process Clause--indeed, by all of the criminal justice guarantees of the Bill of Rights--is a system of announcing in statutes of adequate clarity what conduct is prohibited and then invoking the penalties of the law against those who have committed crimes. The liberty protected under that system is premised on the accountability of free men and women for what they have done, not for what they may do. The Due Process Clause reflects the constitutional imperative that incarceration to protect society from criminals may be accomplished only as punishment of those convicted for past crimes and not as regulation of those feared likely to commit future crimes. 53 What must be determined in this case is whether incarceration for dangerousness as a regulatory measure, though generally prohibited, may be validly applied to a person who has been lawfully arrested. I think it may not. As a matter of probabilities, a person lawfully arrested may pose a greater danger than someone not arrested but only suspected of dangerousness, but is very likely less of a risk to the community than many who have been convicted, sentenced, and released from confinement after expiration of their sentences. Just as the Due Process Clause would prohibit incarcerating a person not even accused of a crime in order to prevent his future crimes, it would equally bar preventive detention of a person who has been convicted of past crimes and has served his sentence. The Clause must accord similar protection to a person not convicted but only accused of a crime. Moreover, if the arrest is thought to reflect that the person is more deserving of confinement than members of the public not accused of crime, the confinement would offend the procedural component of due process by dispensing with the procedural guarantees of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments that must be observed before past conduct may justify incarceration on grounds of dangerousness. 54 There can be no doubt that an arrest permits some regulatory curtailment of liberty. Even before probable cause has been found by a neutral magistrate, a policeman's on-the-scene assessment of probable cause provides legal justification for arresting a person suspected of crime, and for a brief period of detention to take the administrative steps incident to arrest. Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 113-14, 95 S.Ct. 854, 862-63, 43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975). In addition, a seizure reasonable under the Fourth Amendment permits detention until a determination of probable cause by a judicial officer promptly after arrest. Id. at 125. 5 Furthermore, the Constitution's scheme for a system of criminal justice specifies that arrest is to be followed by trial and plainly implies that reasonable steps may be taken to ensure that the trial will take place. Procedures may therefore be used both to secure the defendant's presence at trial and to prevent the defendant from aborting the trial by intimidating witnesses or physically harming them. The risk of flight is normally safeguarded by requiring adequate bail, see Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1, 72 S.Ct. 1, 96 L.Ed. 1 (1951), 6 but circumstances may arise, as this case illustrates, where a reasoned determination may be made that no conditions of release will provide adequate assurance of the defendant's presence at trial. In such circumstances, pretrial detention is a valid regulatory device. See Bell v. Wolfish, supra, 441 U.S. at 534, 99 S.Ct. at 1871; United States v. Martir, supra, 782 F.2d at 1143. Pretrial detention may also be validly imposed whenever substantial evidence indicates that a defendant, if released, would intimidate or injure witnesses or jurors. See United States v. Payden, 768 F.2d 487 (2d Cir.1985); United States v. Gilbert, 425 F.2d 490 (D.C.Cir.1969) (per curiam). See also Application of Cochran, 434 F.Supp. 1207 (D.Neb.1977) (pretrial detention of material witnesses). Pretrial detention to avoid undue risks of flight or jeopardy to the trial process is not prohibited by a constitutional scheme that relies on the trial process to determine guilt and enforce the criminal law. 55 Pretrial detention to prevent future crimes against society at large, however, is not justified by any concern for holding a trial on the charges for which a defendant has been arrested. It is simply a means of providing protection against the risk that society's laws will be broken. Even if the highest value is accorded to that objective, it is one that may not be achieved under our constitutional system by incarcerating those thought likely to commit crimes in the future. Detention of a person lawfully arrested for past criminal conduct is unconstitutional not because preventing crime is less important than preventing a defendant's flight, but because this means of preventing crime conflicts with fundamental principles of our constitutional system of criminal justice, while detention to prevent flight serves the principles of that system by guaranteeing that the defendant will stand trial and, if convicted, face punishment. 56 Permitting an arrested person thought to be dangerous to remain at liberty unquestionably incurs a risk. The prediction of dangerous conduct, however difficult to make and however unreliable, will undoubtedly be correct in some instances. 7 But all guarantees of liberty entail risks, and under our Constitution those guarantees may not be abolished whenever government prefers that a risk not be taken. 57 The limited circumstances justifying incarceration for dangerousness serve to highlight the fundamental unlawfulness of pretrial preventive detention. Obviously dangerousness may be considered in selecting an appropriate punishment for those convicted of crime. Once a defendant has been convicted and sentenced, dangerousness may also validly be considered in deciding whether bail should be granted while the conviction is challenged on appeal. Carbo v. United States, 82 S.Ct. 662, 7 L.Ed.2d 769 (Douglas, Circuit Justice, 1962); Fernandez v. United States, 81 S.Ct. 642, 5 L.Ed.2d 683 (Harlan, Circuit Justice, 1961); United States v. Anderson, 670 F.2d 328 (D.C.Cir.1982) (per curiam); United States v. Provenzano, 605 F.2d 85 (3d Cir.1979). In this context, conviction has occurred, and dangerousness is assessed in determining whether service of the sentence must commence immediately. Even in this context significant voices have expressed doubts: Imprisonment to protect society from predicted but unconsummated offenses is so unprecedented in this country and so fraught with danger of excesses and injustice that I am loath to resort to it, even as a discretionary judicial technique to supplement conviction of such offenses as those of which defendants stand convicted. Williamson v. United States, 184 F.2d 280, 282-83 (Jackson, Circuit Justice, 1950). 58 Detention to prevent dangerous conduct may also be imposed upon those who lack the capacity to be fully accountable for their own actions. The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of a statute authorizing preventive detention of sexual psychopaths, deeming them to be persons unable to control their impulses. Minnesota ex rel. Pearson v. Probate Court, 309 U.S. 270, 60 S.Ct. 523, 84 L.Ed. 744 (1940). See also Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 425-27, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 1808-10, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (civil commitment for mental illness). A similar approach, in far less aggravated circumstances, was employed in Schall v. Martin, supra, upholding New York's preventive detention law for juveniles accused of acts of delinquency. The Court observed, Children, by definition, are not assumed to have the capacity to take care of themselves. 467 U.S. at 265, 104 S.Ct. at 2410. The defendants detained for dangerousness in this case, however, have not been convicted of the offenses charged, and they are competent adults. 59 I have carefully considered the opinions of other appellate courts that have upheld the constitutionality of pretrial confinement for dangerousness in the face of Fifth Amendment objections and find myself in respectful disagreement. See United States v. Portes, supra; United States v. Delker, 757 F.2d 1390 (3d Cir.1985); United States v. Edwards, supra. In Portes, the Seventh Circuit ruled that pretrial detention for dangerousness under section 3142(e) was not punishment and that the procedures specified in the Bail Reform Act satisfy the due process requirements appropriate for deprivation of liberty between arrest and trial. The opinion does not discuss the more fundamental question whether the substantive component of due process permits a person not convicted of a crime to be confined for any purpose not related to the conduct of an impending trial. 60 Delker also analyzed the issue solely as one of procedural due process. In the Third Circuit's view, the procedures of the Act were adequate because the interests at stake in a detention hearing were identical to those in a preliminary hearing. The same view had earlier been expressed by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals in Edwards. That equation is difficult to accept. The interest at stake in a detention hearing is liberty between arrest and trial. A preliminary hearing, on the other hand, determines whether sufficient evidence warrants a trial, leaving for consideration the issue we now confront--whether, pending that trial, the accused may constitutionally be detained for any reason not related to the conduct of the trial. To equate the purposes of a detention hearing and a preliminary hearing is to assume the very point in issue, that a person may be detained prior to trial on grounds of dangerousness. That assumption is incompatible with the Due Process Clause. Only the Edwards decision confronted the contention that preventive detention for dangerousness violates the substantive component of due process. The argument was rejected on the ground that pretrial liberty could be denied whenever a compelling governmental interest would thereby be advanced. 430 A.2d at 1341. As I have tried to demonstrate, that would not be so with respect to those not validly arrested, nor, in my view, is it a tenable argument simply because an arrest has occurred. 61 In only one instance in the constitutional jurisprudence of this country has the Supreme Court upheld the preventive detention of competent adults, prior to conviction of any crime. In Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214, 65 S.Ct. 193, 89 L.Ed. 194 (1944), the Court approved the compulsory relocation and related detention of Americans of Japanese descent during World War II to prevent them from committing acts deemed inimical to the Nation's security, indeed its survival. If Korematsu is valid today, a proposition seriously to be questioned, see Korematsu v. United States, 584 F.Supp. 1406 (N.D.Cal.1984), it illustrates the rare, possibly unique, circumstance in which preventive detention of a competent adult in a time of national emergency comports with the requirements of due process despite the total deprivation of liberty safeguarded by the Fifth Amendment. It does not, however, justify an abandonment of the fundamental principle that detention to prevent the commission of domestic crime can constitutionally occur only after conviction. 62 For all of these reasons, I conclude that section 3142(e) is unconstitutional to the extent that it authorizes pretrial detention on grounds of danger to the community.