Opinion ID: 727615
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Failure to Dismiss Indictment

Text: 17 During trial, counsel for defendant made a belated motion to dismiss the indictment for failure to comply with Fed.R.Crim.P. 5(a), which provides that after an arrest, the officer shall take the arrested person without unnecessary delay before the nearest available federal magistrate judge or, if a federal magistrate judge is not reasonably available, before a state or local judicial officer authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 3041. In this case, defendant was arrested at 3:45 a.m., transferred to a DEA agent at 10 a.m., and not arraigned on state charges until that evening. 18 First, we observe that this motion should have been offered prior to trial. All of the requisite information was readily available to counsel and we have not been made aware of any excuse for waiting to raise the issue until well into the trial. Having said that, we conclude that the motion is without merit in any event. 19 Although defendant was held in a federal facility for part of the day, she was ultimately arraigned on state criminal charges. A federal arrest warrant did not issue for more than a month after her initial arrest by state law enforcement officers. Particularly in drug-trafficking investigations, it is common for state and federal law enforcement agencies to cooperate. In our view, the requirement of Rule 5(a) that an arrested individual be taken without unnecessary delay before a federal magistrate judge applies only when that person has been arrested on federal, not state, charges. 20 While not controlling, a recent Supreme Court case supports our approach. United States v. Alvarez-Sanchez, 114 S.Ct. 1599 (1994). Justice Thomas' discussion of the federal statute governing the admissibility of confessions makes passing reference to Rule 5(a): 21 [T]here can be no delay in bringing a person before a federal magistrate until, at a minimum, there is some obligation to bring the person before such a judicial officer in the first place. Plainly, a duty to present a person to a federal magistrate does not arise until the person has been arrested for a federal offense. See Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 5(a) (requiring initial appearance before a federal magistrate). Until a person is arrested or detained for a federal crime, there is no duty, obligation, or reason to bring him before a [federal] judicial officer empowered to commit persons charged with offenses against the laws of the United States, and therefore, no delay under § 3501(c) can occur. 22 Id. at 1604 (footnote omitted). While defendant argues that she was detained for a federal crime, she had been formally arrested by state law enforcement officers and was arraigned on state charges. Given the situation, there was no requirement that she be brought before a federal magistrate judge.