Michigan Court Decides Fleeing Felon Case Failure To Return Is Not Flight

In a case of first impression, a district court judge in Michigan has ordered the Social Security Administration to reinstate SSI benefits for a man who expressed willingness to return to Montana to face aggravated assault charges if Montana would pay his travel expenses, but who was otherwise physically and financially unable to return.

In a case of first impression, a district court judge in Michigan has ordered the Social Security Administration to reinstate SSI benefits for a man who expressed willingness to return to Montana to face aggravated assault charges if Montana would pay his travel expenses, but who was otherwise physically and financially unable to return. Blakely v. Commissioner 330 F.Supp.2d 910 (W.D. Mich., S. Div. 2004). The charge stemmed from a fistfight in a small town in Montana. Police investigated the incident, but no charges were filed at the time. Instead, police suggested he move away for his own good. Blakely followed that sage advice and a month later moved to another part of Montana and six months after that moved back to his home state of Michigan for job and family reasons. He did not become aware of the warrant until 1999 when he was stopped for a traffic violation in Michigan. Nonetheless the Social Security Administration had determined that, because of the outstanding warrant, he was "fleeing to avoid prosecution," and was thus ineligible for SSI. 42 U.S.C. § 1382(e)(4)(A).

The court did not rule on whether the statute requires intent for a determination that an individual is "fleeing to avoid prosecution." Instead the court found that the Social Security Administration conceded that intent was required based on the Appeals Council finding that Blakely’s failure to return to Montana when he learned of the warrant demonstrated his intent to flee. The Appeals Council relied on a Court of Appeals decision in United States v. Greever, 134 F.3d 777 (6^th Cir. 1998), interpreting similar language in a statute that tolls federal statutes of limitation in criminal cases for one who is "fleeing from justice." However, the district court distinguished Greever, noting that Greever took pains to conceal himself and lied to police about his identity. In addition, the government was actively searching for him. In contrast, Blakely lived openly and offered to go back to Montana if Montana would pay his way and Montana refused to extradite him. The court found that "a meaningful distinction exists between one who has left but declines to return and one who has left a state, without any knowledge of outstanding charges, volunteers to return but is physically and financially unable to do so without the government’s help." Slip opinion, p. 7. While the court found, on the basis of the facts in this case, that the Commissioner’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence, the court also made clear that it was not deciding that in all cases the Commissioner must determine that the government has pursued the claimant or that the state must always provide extradition.

PRACTICE TIP - The Blakely decision makes clear the importance of developing a solid and detailed factual record at the administrative hearing stage in these cases. It is important, not only to present testimony on why the person did not appear in court and why the individual moved to another state, but also to present in detail the financial and other reasons why the person cannot return. Blakely also suggests that it is important for the individual to make a written offer to return as soon as he or she becomes aware of the warrant, or in any event, significantly in advance of the Administrative Law Judge hearing. The written offer should also contain a statement of the individual’s finances to make it clear that assistance is needed..