State v. Mohammed A. Nonahal, 2001 WI App 39
For Nonahal: David R. Karpe
Issue: Whether the defendant waived a claimed violation of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers’ anti-shuttling provision, by requesting to be sent back to the sending jurisdiction before trial.
¶8; … we conclude that rights granted under the anti-shuttling provision of the IAD are statutory in nature and may be waived if the prisoner requests a procedure inconsistent with the statute’s provisions….¶9; Turning to the facts of this case, we conclude that Nonahal affirmatively requested to be treated in a manner contrary to WIS. STAT. § 976.05(4)(e), the anti-shuttling provision of the IAD, and that his request constituted a waiver of these rights.
Note: The U.S. Supreme Court has now applied a strict reading of the anti-shuttling provision, so that a preserved violation requires dismissal with prejudice. Alabama v. Michael H. Bozeman, 533 US 146 (2001).