{"argument_date":"2001-04-17T00:00:00Z","arguments":[{"argument_date":"2001-04-17T00:00:00Z","heading":"What happened at the argument","official_detail_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcript/2000","official_transcript_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-492.pdf","paragraphs":["Ms. Stewart argued the case does not involve an unjust conviction or constitutional denial.","Mr. Christensen argued all courts recognize the agreement's mandatory language.","Mr. Lamken argued a brief confinement break does not force dismissal.","Chief Justice Rehnquist noted the case was submitted after the argument."],"reargument":false,"sequence":1,"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 21-39","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-492.pdf","page_label":"file page 18, lines 21-39"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 7-39","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-492.pdf","page_label":"file page 28, lines 7-39"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-7","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-492.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 15-7"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-492.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 5-13"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 47, lines 35-39","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-492.pdf","page_label":"file page 47, lines 35-39"}]}],"caption":"Alabama v. Bozeman","case_history":[{"changed_at":"2026-08-29T20:06:33.119540Z","explanation":"An official oral-argument transcript was verified.","status":"argued"}],"case_status":"argued","dek":"Alabama seeks to keep a criminal case alive. The defendant argues a short break in custody forces dismissal.","dek_sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 21-39","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-492.pdf","page_label":"file page 18, lines 21-39"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 7-39","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-492.pdf","page_label":"file page 28, lines 7-39"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-7","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-492.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 15-7"}],"dispositions":[],"latest_court_document_date":"2001-04-17T00:00:00Z","maturity":"official_transcript","official_detail_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcript/2000","official_disposition_urls":[],"official_docket_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/00-492.html","primary_docket":"00-492","revisions":[{"correction_note":"Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.","created_at":"2026-08-31T17:53:43.751950Z","maturity":"official_transcript","revision_number":1},{"correction_note":"Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.","created_at":"2026-09-05T03:22:24Z","maturity":"official_transcript","revision_number":2}],"schema_version":"1.1","sections":[{"heading":"What this case is about","paragraphs":["The Interstate Agreement on Detainers governs prisoner transfers. The parties dispute whether a brief break in custody triggers mandatory dismissal."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 21-39","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-492.pdf","page_label":"file page 18, lines 21-39"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 7-39","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-492.pdf","page_label":"file page 28, lines 7-39"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-7","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-492.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 15-7"}]},{"heading":"How the case got here","paragraphs":["The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 17, 2001."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-492.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 5-13"}]},{"heading":"What each side wants","paragraphs":["Alabama wants the Court to uphold the state indictment despite a brief break in custody.","The defendant wants the Court to dismiss the state indictment due to the break in custody."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 21-39","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-492.pdf","page_label":"file page 18, lines 21-39"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 7-39","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-492.pdf","page_label":"file page 28, lines 7-39"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-7","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-492.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 15-7"}]},{"heading":"What each side says","paragraphs":["Alabama argues a brief interruption in confinement does not require dismissal under the agreement.","The defendant argues the agreement's mandatory language requires dismissal after a break in custody."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 21-39","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-492.pdf","page_label":"file page 18, lines 21-39"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 7-39","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-492.pdf","page_label":"file page 28, lines 7-39"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-7","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-492.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 15-7"}]},{"heading":"What the justices asked","paragraphs":["Chief Justice Rehnquist asked if the case was submitted after the argument concluded."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 47, lines 35-39","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-492.pdf","page_label":"file page 47, lines 35-39"}]},{"heading":"Why it matters","paragraphs":["This case defines when a state must drop charges after a prisoner transfer delay. It sets the rule for all future prisoner transfer disputes. It balances state prosecution power against prisoner rights. It clarifies the mandatory nature of the interstate agreement."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 21-39","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-492.pdf","page_label":"file page 18, lines 21-39"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 7-39","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-492.pdf","page_label":"file page 28, lines 7-39"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-7","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-492.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 15-7"}]},{"heading":"What happens next","paragraphs":["This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-492.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 5-13"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 47, lines 35-39","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-492.pdf","page_label":"file page 47, lines 35-39"}]}],"slug":"2000-00-492-alabama-v-bozeman","term":"2000","title":"Does a brief confinement break void a state indictment?","title_sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 21-39","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-492.pdf","page_label":"file page 18, lines 21-39"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 7-39","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-492.pdf","page_label":"file page 28, lines 7-39"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-7","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-492.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 15-7"}],"topics":[],"undated_disposition_date_fallback":null,"updated_at":"2026-09-05T03:22:24Z"}