U.S. attorney addresses case of North Carolina boy held in South Bend - May 7, 2009
Beth Boehne - WSBT South Bend
According to the release by U.S. attorney David Capp, his office "previously announced that a juvenile was arrested pursuant to a federal warrant. The arrest stems from a false bomb threat directed to Purdue University on Feb. 15 and similar threats directed to other schools."The FBI, the Purdue University Police Department and the Tippecanoe County prosecutor's office conducted an extensive investigation into this matter, resulting in that arrest. Over recent days, several media sources have reported information that is incorrect.
"Accordingly, the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Indiana wishes to further announce that a juvenile information has been filed and is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. That charge alleges a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 844(e), which prohibits sending false information about an attempt to kill, injure or intimidate any individual or to unlawfully to damage any building through an instrument of interstate commerce. This charge is unrelated to the Patriot Act.
"The juvenile has appeared in court on three occasions, once in North Carolina for an initial hearing and a detention hearing, and twice in Indiana for a continued initial hearing and a status hearing. At each hearing, the juvenile was represented by counsel. The government has filed a motion with the Court seeking to transfer the juvenile to adult status for prosecution pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 5032; that motion is pending before the Court and is scheduled for a hearing during the month of May.
"The juvenile is presently housed in a juvenile facility in the Northern District of Indiana where he does not have contact with adult offenders. His mother has been apprised of each court appearance and has attended the hearing in North Carolina; she did not appear at either of the hearings in Indiana. The juvenile facility where he is housed permits family visits.
"Because the statutes governing juvenile proceedings limit public disclosure of information related to a juvenile case, the United States Attorney declines any further comment."
And a link to 18 USC 844.
"The charge is unrelated to the PATRIOT Act" doesn't explain the process for detention (750 mile relocation) and the timeline for speedy trial (30 days MAX, starting from date of detention) deviating from the statutes previously cited.
I wonder when the 18 USC 844(e) charge was filed. Today? Held 60+ days w/o being charged?
However, a juvenile who is alleged to have committed an act after his sixteenth birthday which if committed by an adult would be ... an offense described in section ... 844 (e) of this title ... and who has previously been found guilty of an act which if committed by an adult would have been one of the offenses set forth in this paragraph or an offense in violation of a State felony statute that would have been such an offense if a circumstance giving rise to Federal jurisdiction had existed, shall be transferred to the appropriate district court of the United States for criminal prosecution.
I have the impression that the government is playing word games, keying off an ill-informed expression about resort to the USA PATRIOT Act. I think it's a bit unfair to lay all the blame for less-than-perfect-precise description at Mrs. Lundeby's feet. This is from the late-April news-report that kicked off the internet firestorm:
"They're saying that 'We feel this individual is a terrorist or an enemy combatant against the United States, and we're going to suspend all of those due process rights because this person is an enemy of the United States," said Dan Boyce, a defense attorney and former U.S. attorney not connected to the Lundeby case. ..."There's nothing a matter of public record," Boyce said "All those normal rights are just suspended in the air." ...
Boyce said the Patriot Act was written with good intentions, but he said he believes it has gone too far in some cases. Lundeby's might be one of them, he said.
"It very well could be a case of overreaction, where an agent leaped to certain conclusions or has made certain assumptions about this individual and about how serious the threat really is," Boyce said.
That said, one of the "beauties" of the USA PATRIOT Act is that it enables holding a suspect w/o charge, for an indefinite period, upon certain statements by the investigating and prosecuting authorities that aim to keep the suspect OUT of the criminal justice system. The rationale being that a terrorist who gets into the criminal justice system will have too many rights; and it is better to use a different system of detention, trial and punishment.