Triestman v. Underwood

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Where a state court order of protection that imposes severe constraints upon a non-incarcerated person’s physical liberty and civil freedoms, and where he suffers “restraints not shared by the public generally” that equal or exceed the restraints held to be “in-custody” in Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. : 236 (1963) and Hensley v. Municipal Court, 411 U.S. 345 (1973): 1. Does a federal district court have jurisdiction to entertain a habeas corpus petition and recognize such person as “in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court” under 28 U.S. C. §2254(a)? : 2. Did the Appellate Court erroneously construe the . ; scope of the habeas “in custody” element to apply only when a petitioner is legally compelled to act in constraint of his liberty? Or does the “in custody” scope also apply where a petitioner is ; legally restrained from acting in constraint of his liberty? 3. Does the risk of arrest and detention pursuant to an unknowing or unintentional violation of said order of protection, implicate a cognizable risk of loss of liberty, regardless of eventual exoneration of the violation? -ii