Ridgeway Unified Courts

JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF RIDGEWAY

Searchable full text

2,806 characters extracted

—

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY IN AND FOR RIDGEWAY COUNTY STATE OF RIDGEWAY, Plaintiff, v. TUB_Z, Defendant. ____________________________/ CRIMINAL DIVISION CASE NO.: 06-2024-RSC-CM-2675 JUDGE: HON. ALEXJCABOT MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on the State’s Petition for the defendant to be declared a ‘Fugitive’.1 For the reasons that follow, the Court hereby ORDERS that the Petition for Fugitive Status against the defendant is DENIED. I. BACKGROUND On April 20th 2024 the State filed their appropriate charging documents to which the CHIEF JUDGE found probable cause and authorized the issuance of a summons. The defendant failed to appear within the given timeframe. Magistrate Bommes was assigned to handle the ‘fugitive proceedings’ before the case was reassigned to this court. On April 29th 2024 the State requested an Order to Show Cause be issued (FDRA § 1.1(d)). Following that the State notified the Magistrate on May 15th 2024 that the defendant had failed to respond and an administrative adjustment was made to the OTSC before it was reserved on May 26th 2024. On May 21st a Petition for Fugitive Status was submitted to the court resulting in this matter being decided now. 1 This designation of ‘Fugitive Status’ that will be discussed throughout this order is established in the Fugitive Debt Recovery Act of 2024 (hereinafter ‘FDRA’). 1 II. ONE LINE ORDER The Court finds that the portion in the FDRA which the State seeks to enforce is plainly unconstitutional – specifically Section 1 in its entirety. Due to the doctrine of constitutional avoidance the Court strikes down Section 1 of the FDRA on the basis that it imposes a ‘cruel and unusual’ disciplinary regime against individuals awaiting trial in violation of the 8th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Before legal fanatics lose their marbles I will clarify that the only way to bring down this statutory regime through the taking down of Section 1 in its entirety is through the 8th Amendment. There are many other constitutional provisions which conflict with this Act but in invoking any other constitutional right the Court would begin a game of ‘constitutional whack-a-mole’. It would effectively result in the legislature plugging one hole and then five others holes appearing at the same time. My full written-ruling will be released this weekend. This is released to provide legal certainty to all parties involved. III. CONCLUSION The Court therefore ORDERS that the Petition for Fugitive Status against the defendant is therefore DENIED. The Court further STRIKES down Section 1 of the FDRA. SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED in chambers in Palmer, Ridgeway County, Ridgeway, this 10th day of June, 2024. BY: /s/ - ALEX J. CABOT Ridgeway Superior Court Judge 2

MotionRuling_RSC-CM-2675_1833-061024.pdf

Original document

Searchable full text

Document record