United States v. Sanchez-Gomez, No. 13-50561 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseDefendants challenged a policy in which judges of the Southern District of California have deferred to the recommendation of the United States Marshals to place pretrial detainees in full shackle restraints for most appearances before a judge, including arraignments, unless a judge specifically requests the restraints be removed in a particular case. The court held that a full restraint policy ought to be justified by a commensurate need. It cannot rest primarily on the economic strain of the jailer to provide adequate safeguards. The court reiterated that it recognized in United States v. Howard that such a policy must be adopted with “adequate justification of its necessity.” In this case, the Southern District has failed to provide adequate justification for its restrictive shackling policy. Therefore, the court vacated the district court's orders and remanded.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel vacated the district court’s orders in four cases in which defendants challenged a policy in the Southern District of California whereby United States Marshals place pretrial detainees in full shackle restraints for most appearances before a judge, including arraignments, unless a judge specifically requests the restraints be removed in a particular case. The panel held that a full restraint policy ought to be justified by a commensurate need, and cannot rest primarily on the economic strain of the jailer to provide adequate safeguards. The panel held that on the record here, the Southern District has failed to provide adequate justification for its restrictive shackling policy. The panel remanded for further proceedings. 4 UNITED STATES V. SANCHEZ-GOMEZ
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on August 5, 2016.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on May 31, 2017.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on July 2, 2018.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.