In United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) he United States Supreme Court upheld the federal Bail Reform Act against a facial constitutionality challenge on the basis of substantive and procedural due process. As to the procedural due process challenge, the United States Supreme Court analyzed whether the procedures of the Bail Reform Act were sufficient to permit, pursuant thereto, the pretrial detention of some persons charged with crimes. Salerno, 481 U.S. at 751. The United States Supreme Court noted that the Bail Reform Act limited the possibility of pretrial detention to only the most serious crimes, id. at 747, and concluded that "the pretrial detention contemplated by the Bail Reform Act is regulatory in nature, and does not constitute punishment before trial in violation of the Due Process Clause." Salerno, 481 U.S. at 748. The United States Supreme Court declined to "intimate a view as to the point at which detention in a particular case might become excessively prolonged, and therefore punitive, in relation to Congress' regulatory goal." Id. at 747. In rejecting the facial constitutionality challenge, the United States Supreme Court relied upon the legitimate and compelling regulatory purpose of the Act, as well as its finding that there were extensive procedural safeguards to protect the rights of pretrial detainees under the Act. Id. at 752. The United States Supreme Court ruled that before grand jury testimony of an unavailable witness could be introduced at trial by defendant, the proponent of the testimony would have to satisfy the "similar motive" requirement of F.R.E. 804(b)(1). In Salerno, the parties agreed, and the Supreme Court did not dispute, that the unavailable witnesses' grand jury testimony qualified under F.R.E. 804(b)(1) as "testimony given as a witness at another hearing . . ." United States v. Salerno, supra, 505 U.S. at 321. F.R.E. 804(b)(1) is an exception to the federal hearsay exclusionary rule when a declarant is unavailable as a witness. The section of the rule construed by the Supreme Court in United States v. Salerno, supra, provides as follows: The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule if declarant is unavailable as a witness: (1) Former testimony. Testimony given as a witness at another hearing of the same or of a different proceeding. . . . if the party against whom the testimony is now offered . . . had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony by direct, cross, or redirect examination. F.R.E. 804(b)(1). In sum, the United States Supreme Court upheld the federal Bail Reform Act of 1984, which permitted, among other things, "a federal court to detain an arrestee pending trial if the Government demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence after an adversary hearing that no release conditions 'will reasonably assure . . . the safety of any other person and the community.'" 481 U.S. at 741. Although this provision of the Act represented "sweeping changes in both the way federal courts consider bail applications and the circumstances under which bail is granted," the Court determined that it withstood substantive due process scrutiny. Id. at 742.