In Arizona, the level of procedure required to hold defendants without bail pending trial was addressed in Simpson v. Owens, 207 Ariz. 261, 85 P.3d 478 (App. 2004), where the no-bail determination was made without an adversarial hearing. The Court held that "due process requires that a full and adversarial evidentiary hearing be conducted." 207 Ariz, at 265, P 12, 85 P. 3d at 482. Because there is a presumption in favor of bail unless the proof is evident or the presumption great the defendant committed a crime enumerated in 13-3961(A), a hearing must be provided. Id. at 270, PP 26-27, 85 P. 3d 487. The hearing must provide the defendant with "an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." Id. (quoting Huck v. Haralambie, 122 Ariz. 63, 65, 593 P.2d 286, 288 (1979)). Simpson noted that an adequate bail hearing could rarely be conducted at the initial appearance. Id. at 278, P 54, 85 P. 3d at 495. See also Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 531, 123 S. Ct. 1708, 155 L. Ed. 2d 724 (2003) (holding that detention of a deportable alien during removal proceedings is constitutionally permissible); id. (Kennedy, J., concurring) (noting that "due process requires individualized procedures to ensure that there is at least some merit to the Immigration and Naturalization Service's (INS) charge").