Phil Cave notes an Army Times report about a Fourth Circuit decision holding that a military accused housed in the BOP as the result of a sex offense isn’t subject to civil commitment.
Here’s a link to the Fourth Circuit’s published decision in the case. United States v. Joshua, __ F.3d ___, No. 10-6281 (4th Cir. June 14, 2010). Judge Duncan wrote for a unanimous panel, affirming the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina’s ruling.
The Fourth Circuit concluded that as a contractual boarder, Joshua wasn’t “in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons” as that term is used in the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 4248(a).
The court noted that the statute’s term “custody” could refer to either physical or legal control. The court concluded that Congress intended the latter for purposes of the civil commitment statute. The court concluded that the Army, rather than the BOP, had ultimate legal control over Joshua. Accordingly, he was not “in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons.”