Ker–Frisbie doctrine

The Ker - Frisbie doctrine, sometimes referred to more recently as Ker - Frisbie - Alvarez Doctrine, is one applicable in the U.S. legal principle which was established by the case law of the Supreme Court of the United States and the circumstances surrounding the transfer of persons, suspected of a crime has been committed, relates to the competent court for them. It says that suspects may be indicted in U.S. courts even if they have not been shipped legally, but have passed through a violent kidnapping in the jurisdiction of the Court.

Legal bases

The first of the relevant and eponymous for the Ker - Frisbie doctrine decisions of the Supreme Court was Ker v. Illinois (119 U.S. 436 ) from 1886, which had a lawsuit for legal certainty of an abducted from Peru accused to content. This was followed by 1952, the Frisbie v. Collins judgment (342 U.S. 519), which was the case of a defendant based on who was kidnapped from Chicago, Illinois to Michigan and put on trial. The Supreme Court in both cases found neither in the Constitution of the United States or in other laws or, in the context of decision Ker v. Illinois, in the extradition treaty exists with Peru a basis for ensuring that a violent kidnapping was a sufficient reason why a defendant must not provide a legal procedure before a competent court, if he had come in its jurisdiction.

With the ruling in United States v. Alvarez- Machain (504 U.S. 655) in 1992, which concerned the abduction of a Mexican doctor who was indicted in the U.S. for his involvement in the murder of an employee of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, confirmed the Supreme Court confirmed its previous case-law, and thus the validity of the Ker - Frisbie doctrine. The court found, in particular, that no violation of the extradition treaty with Mexico existed, since neither its terms nor its legislative history or the practice of its implementation would support the adoption of a ban on abductions.