Classic Christmas movie? Never heard of it.
I agree with Doreen here. An arrest warrant or writ of bodily attachment, etc. is merely a directive by a court. To be “held” as such as described requires a charge, mostly it would be Indirect Contempt or a related Order.
Those who are imprisoned for such need to challenge that Courts legal authority to commit them. In Ohio a Court of Appeals, (appropriate circuit of course), has Original Jurisdiction in Habeas Corpus Petitions.
Now, HC Petitions must be reviewed generally without delay, as a person’s detention is being challenged.
I’d like to see if the ACLU has ever filed such, or knew of any person who filed theirs Pro Se, and what the ruling was? If it was for Indirect Contempt for failure to comply or such, let it be ruled upon by the Appeals court, such as the man from Texas who was arrested for not appearing at his debtor’s exam.
This is my thought. If the ACLU knew of this, or the person had any access to an attorney, they would have easily challenged the detention. I suspect what we are seeing is people arrested on “failure to appear” which means they should eventually be able to explain to a judge, who makes it clear appear means appear. If they explained and are still being held, maybe their explanation was not very good. If they are being held so that they can be subject to examination by the opposite’s attorneys, the question then would be “what’s the delay?”
I have trouble believing that individual states all over the country have converged on the same concept of debtor’s prison.
Here is a 1960’s case concerning a lawyer’s contempt of court charge, being jailed, and the filing of a Petition for Habeas Corpus relief. It concerns Due Process. Of course, not on point exactly with what is being discussed, but offers some insight. If a person is jailed, why not try this route with a basis of why it should be granted, that is, what statutory or constitutional elements have been violated. Nothing to loose! The lawyer won.