A married couple claimed that police officers acted unreasonably in stopping the family's vehicle and subjecting the husband to a prolonged investigatory detention based on an observation of the husband at a bank. Aside from being African-American, the husband did not look like the robbery suspect sought, since he was roughly twice the size of the suspect, and would not have been described as "muscular," even dressed in baggy clothes. Additionally, his conduct at the bank did not even remotely match the bank robber's method of operation, as the whole family, including two children, went to a drive-up window, parked, and then the husband, paycheck in hand, tried the front door, which was locked. The husband identified himself to the police as a pastor, but they allegedly did nothing to verify his identity. Under these circumstances, a 40-minute detention would be unreasonable, the appeals court stated, upholding a denial of summary judgment for the officers. Hopkins v. Vaughn, #08-2727, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 2121 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
     An officer was entitled to qualified immunity for briefly detaining the plaintiff, a university student, since he had reasonable suspicion that he was a minor in unlawful possession of alcohol, observing him in a group, several of whom had beers in their hands as they walked across a square. He demanded the plaintiff's identification, checked the validity of his driver's license, and checked whether there were any outstanding warrants. The officer was not required to take the plaintiff's word that he was 21, and his initial refusal to hand over his license justified a suspicion that perhaps it was a phony, or there were outstanding warrants for the plaintiff's arrest. Klaucke v. Daly, #09-1222, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 2633 (1st Cir.).
     A husband and father was shot and killed after his 12-year-old daughter went to get a gun for him. Police suspected that he might have been murdered by his family members. The wife and daughter claimed that they were improperly detained in a police mobile unit for one-and-a-half to two hours when officers, actually engaged in installing a surreptitious listening device in their home pursuant to a warrant, falsely told them that there was a hostage situation involving a gun in the area so that they could not return to their home. The daughter, who was subsequently arrested, claimed that officers interrogated her without advising her of her right to have her attorney or mother present, and denied her access to her attorney or mother. She disputed the officers' claim that she had waived her rights. Denying motions by the officers for qualified immunity or judgment as a matter of law, the court instructed the jury on both unlawful detention and unlawful interrogation claims, The jury was also instructed on qualified immunity. The jury, answering special interrogatories, found that the officers' had not violated the plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights through unlawful detention, and that they did not engage in conduct that "shocks the conscience" in violation of due process in their interrogation of the daughter. While the plaintiffs argued that the trial judge acted erroneously in submitting the instruction on qualified immunity to the jury, the appeals court ruled that, even if this were the case, it would have been harmless, in light of the jury's answers to special interrogatories indicating a "total defense verdict" on all issues, including whether the officers engaged in unlawful detention or improper interrogation. Gonzales v. Duran, #08-2184 590 F.3d 855 (10th Cir. 2009).
    The sister and brother-in-law of a man shot and killed by police claimed that officers violated their rights by detaining the brother-in-law. The plaintiffs lacked standing to assert any claims based on the officers' conduct towards the decedent, the court ruled. The defendants argued that the brother-in-law was properly detained based on probable cause to believe that he was interfering with an officer's performance of his duties in the garage where the shooting took place, and subsequently had justification to keep detaining him at the police station due to probable cause to believe that he had assaulted an officer. The officers also claimed that both plaintiffs were properly detained as material witnesses to the shooting. While their detention for eleven hours exceeded brief detentions that were found by other courts to be justified on that basis, the court in this case found that exceptional circumstances and the sequence of events justified the length of the detentions in this case. Golla v. City of Bossier City, #06-2298, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 116863 (W.D. La.).
    While there was probable cause to arrest a man in a bank parking lot for two vehicle offenses, the officers arguably violated the arrestee's Fourth Amendment rights by allegedly keeping him in custody for longer than 48 hours (52 hours) without a judicial determination of probable cause to engage in investigation of other possible crimes, such as his possible involvement in a bank robbery. Swanigan v. Trotter, #07-C-4749, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 68395 (N.D. Ill.).
     Officers and a town were not entitled to dismissal of a woman's claim that she was unlawfully detained. While it could be argued that any reasonable person would have felt free to leave when she was being questioned by one of the defendant officers, the court stated, the arrival of three officers changed the circumstances enough to possibly constitute an unlawful seizure or improper interrogation, requiring further proceedings. The court rejected the argument that the plaintiff had clearly already been seized by the one officer before the others arrived, and that they therefore could not be liable for her seizure. Saenz v. Lucas, 07 Civ. 10534, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 69571 (S.D.N.Y.).
     The plaintiff, a U.S. citizen, went to Iraq to work on a documentary film, and was arrested and then detained in a U.S. military camp after washing machine timers were found in his taxi. Such timers, according to the court, are often used in explosive devices. He was allegedly held for 48 days before he was provided with a hearing before a military officers' panel, following which an investigation cleared him of criminal conduct. He was then released six days later. He sued two generals, a number of other unnamed defendants, and the former Secretary of Defense, claiming that his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights were violated by these actions. The federal trial court ruled that the plaintiff was protected by the provisions of the Bill of Rights while overseas, but that the defendants could not be held liable. They were entitled to immunity as the prior clearly established case law concerning the right to a timely probable cause hearing concerned detainees on "non-hostile U.S. territory" rather than overseas. There was also no violation of his right to due process, since he received prompt notice of the charge against him. In the setting of a battlefield, the court commented, the government has a strong interest in providing for the safety of military personnel, and this took priority over the holding of a probable cause hearing under the circumstances. The lawsuit was dismissed. Kar v. Donald Rumsfeld, Civil Action No. 07-0984, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 73974 (D.D.C.).
     Prosecutor was not entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity when it was alleged that they failed to inform a judge who issued a warrant to detain material witnesses in a murder case that the case had been continued, resulting in the witnesses remaining incarcerated. The duty to inform the judge of this was administrative rather than prosecutorial, especially when the judge had ordered that he be kept informed of any delay in the underlying murder case. In a second case, decided together with the first one, the federal appeals court also found that keeping a witness in a case in custody after the end of the proceeding in which he was to testify was part of the prosecutor's administrative oversight duties, and had "nothing to do" with carrying out the prosecution, so that absolute immunity was not available. Odd v. Malone, No. 06-4287, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 16466 (3rd Cir.).
     A police officer acted reasonably in detaining two suspects in an auto theft investigation on the basis of a "be on the lookout" (BOLO) report when the suspects matched the description of the persons sought. The BOLO said that the suspects were young black males, one wearing a white jersey and one wearing a blue jersey, and one having corn rows in his hair. While the officer may not have needed to display his weapon or order the suspects on the ground in order to detain them until the highway patrol arrived, he did not deliberately violate their rights, and was entitled to qualified immunity on a claim that the manner of the detention was unreasonable, as well as on an excessive force claim. The fact that those detained were not the suspects sought did not alter the result. While Dorsey v. Barber, No. 05-4235, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 3650 (6th Cir.).
     Police officer's stop and detention of a woman, when based entirely on an anonymous tip that she was carrying a gun while walking a dog, with no indication of its reliability did not appear to be supported by reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Additionally, as the officer had handcuffed this suspect, and she posed no threat to anyone, and there was no evidence of exigent circumstances, the officer's warrantless entry into the suspect's home was not lawful. The officer was not entitled to qualified immunity. Holloway v. Vargas, No. 06-4138, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 9672 (D. Kan.).
     Deputy called to the scene of a residential fire was justified in at least briefly detaining a woman found at the residence when he had been advised by fire department officials that a woman was "barricaded" in the building and refusing to come out, and the woman was behaving "irrationally" and in a "highly agitated' way at the time. At the time of the detention, the possibility that the fire was the result of arson had not been ruled out. Bell-Hayes v. Dewitt, No. 06-1683, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 3125 (4th Cir.).
     Officers did not violate a man's Fourth Amendment rights in handcuffing a man, searching his van, luggage, and apartment, and taking him to a hospital, where he voluntarily was hospitalized for treatment, after they received information from a hot line operator stating that the man had stated that he was suicidal, possessed weapons at his residence, and that he "could understand" why people would shoot others at work. The officers spoke to a co-worker to determine that the threats should be taken seriously, and there were exigent circumstances justifying the warrantless actions taken to both determine the scope of the threat and to defuse it. Under these circumstances, seizing the man's weapons was justified, and the continued retention of the weapons by police was not a due process violation when the man subsequently failed to follow available state law procedures to get his property returned. Mora v. City of Gaithersburg, No. 06-2158, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 4561 (4th Cir.).
     Police officer did not act unreasonably in detaining a man and taking him to a state hospital for mental evaluation after he pointed a finger in the officer's face during a conversation about his claim that government officials had been harassing him. At the hospital, he was diagnosed with "psychotic disorder--not otherwise specified." His statements indicated that he would follow police and try to "get to the bottom" of the purported attacks on him showed that there was a substantial risk that he would engage in dangerous and irrational behavior and that he was mentally ill. Nothing that the officer did was "shocking" to the conscience or violated his rights. He also did not produce any evidence that the officer gave false information about him to hospital personnel. Simon v. Cook, No. 06-6514, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 2381 (6th Cir.).
     Reports that a motorist had displayed a gun at a truck driver during a "road rage" incident were sufficient to give an officer sufficient reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to detain him handcuffed in the back seat of a police cruiser for about 15 minutes while determining whether the truck driver intended to file criminal charges. Williams v. Leatherwood, No. 06-6322, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 30056 (6th Cir.).
     A motorist stopped and detained by a police detective raised a genuine issue of fact as to whether the initial seizure of herself and her vehicle had been improperly extended for over two hours after there was no longer any reasonable suspicion of any criminal activity. She claimed that she remained handcuffed at the scene for a prolonged period of time and was then directed to go with officers to police headquarters. Overturning summary judgment for the detective, the appeals court ruled that the plaintiff alleged facts from which a reasonable jury or other factfinder could find that her continued detention violated the Fourth Amendment. Gilles v. Repicky, No. 06-1272, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 29520 (2nd Cir.).
     Police officer was not entitled to qualified immunity on a claim that he improperly continued to detain two Hispanic family members at a store after determining that they had a receipt for the merchandise he suspected them of stealing. He allegedly forced them to continue to wait at the store until the border patrol arrived on the basis of nothing other than the fact that they were Hispanics, and should have known, at that time, that he lacked a basis to continue their detention. Flores v. J.C. Penney Corp., No. 06-55570, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 28039 (9th Cir.).
     Police officers initially had probable cause to arrest the plaintiff as the armed man who robbed a gas station, based on the cashier's identification of him as the robber, but two officers were not entitled to summary judgment on the arrestee's claim that, although he had prominent tattoos on his arms, they unreasonably prolonged his detention after watching a videotape that showed that the robber had no such tattoos, hid the tape, and falsely reported that the tape showed a man with tattoos. Russo v. City of Bridgeport, No. 05-4302, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 4428 (2nd Cir.).[N/R]
     Burglary arrestee who was allegedly detained for three additional days after the homeowner told police that he had permission to be in the residence and to take the items he had been accused of stealing was not entitled to damages against the city, based on his failure to show that the city's inaction was what caused his prolonged incarceration. Merely showing six other complaints against the city for allegedly overly long detentions in a five-year period was insufficient to establish a "persistent" pattern of similar deprivations. Alphabet v. City of Cleveland, No. 1:05 CV 1792, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 83489 (N.D. Ohio). [N/R]
     Detention of suspect for five days after his warrantless arrest without taking him before a judge for a probable cause hearing entitled him to judgment as a matter of law on his federal civil rights claims arising out of that fact, so that trial judge acted erroneously on refusing to submit the claim to the jury and instead granting the defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law. Plaintiff was also entitled to further proceedings on his claim concerning the conditions of his warrantless detention, based on conflicting evidence. Lopez v. City of Chicago, No. 05-1877, 464 F.3d 711 (7th Cir. 2006). [N/R]
     Under Michigan state law, arrestee's lawsuit over being mistakenly being held in custody for several months despite his claim that his twin brother was the person suspected of having committed a crime fell within a "gross negligence" exception to the defense of governmental immunity from liability. Kendricks v. Rehfield, No. 256693, 716 N.W.2d 623 (Mich. App. 2006). [N/R]
     Because there were genuine factual issues as to whether an officer acted intentionally in delaying the processing of paperwork required before an arrestee could be given his probable cause hearing, he was not entitled to summary judgment in the arrestee's federal civil rights lawsuit. The city, however, could not be liable for the officer's alleged actions, since there was no evidence of a municipal policy or custom of such delays or of a pattern of tolerance by the city of such delays. Smith v. Eggbrecht, No. 04-5302, 414 F. Supp. 2d 882 (W.D. Ark. 2005). [N/R]
     An alleged four to six hour delay in releasing an arrestee from detention after he posted bond was not deliberate indifference to his due process rights when there were valid administrative reasons for the delay, including a requirement, when an arrestee had violated a protective order, that the county notify the victims of his pending release, and the fact that there were more inmates than usual and more releases than usual on the dates of the plaintiff's incarceration. Stepnes v. Hennepin County, No. 05-2059, 153 Fed. Appx. 410 (8th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     Officers' actions in confining tenants during the search of their apartment under a warrant which did not state which of two apartments on the second floor should be searched was "privileged," barring their false imprisonment claim against the city. Paulemond v. City of New York, 812 N.Y.S.2d (Sup. App. Term 2006). [N/R]
     Police officers did not violate a man's rights by detaining and questioning him after he was reported to be armed in a hardware store. While the man turned out to be a police officer in civilian clothes, the initial identification he displayed did not conclusively confirm this, so the officers did not act improperly in continuing the detention and questioning until they were sure. Thurman v. Village of Homewood, No. 05-2940, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 10881 (7th Cir.). [2006 LR Jun]
     African-American man detained by police officer in front of his home as a suspect in an assault and robbery was entitled to a new trial in his unlawful detention lawsuit when the officer's detention of him was not based on any articulated facts. Subsequent pressing of criminal charges against him and another African-American male for alleged involvement in the crime, while failing to bring similar charges against a white male also identified by the victim as involved in the crime, were not shown to be racially motivated. Mitchell v. Boelcke, No. 04-2219, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 5120 (6th Cir.). [2006 LR Apr]
     Sheriff's deputies who allegedly detained a man and his wife, taking them from their home at night, on the basis of an uncorroborated phone call from a hospital nurse stating that a two-year-old child told her mother that the man had "hurt her pee pee" were not entitled to qualified immunity on false arrest and unlawful detention claims. Cortez v. McCauley, No. 04-2062 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 3270 (10th Cir.). [2006 LR Apr]
     Federal court certifies class action status for lawsuit brought by former Chicago post-arrest detainees who claimed that they were subject to improperly long interrogation room confinement, deprived of sleep accommodations, and held for over 48 hours before receiving a probable cause hearing. Dunn v. City of Chicago, No. 04-C-6804, 231 F.R.D. 367 (N.D. Ill. 2005). [N/R]
     Police officer's initial investigatory stop of suspect and detention of him for one hour near his house was not shown to be unreasonable. The plaintiff failed to allege the reason for the initial detention or an explanation why the one-hour delay was unreasonable. The evidence available, which included that he was a known methamphetamine user and dealer, that he had been stopped many times before, and that the officers smelled anhydrous ammonia (a key ingredient in manufacturing methamphetamine) coming from his house, "suggests tat the officers did have reasonable suspicion." The officers had asked for permission to search his house, and when this was refused, they placed him in the back of a police car where he sat until the officers obtained a search warrant for the residence. Bowden v. City of Electra, No. 04-10767, 152 Fed. Appx. 363 (5th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     Detainment of an arrestee for 10.5 hours during his processing for release on posted bail was not unconstitutionally unreasonable. Sizer v. County of Hennepin, No. Civ. 03-5830, 393 F. Supp. 2d 796 (D. Minn. 2005). [N/R]
     A 24-hour detention of a motorist arrested under a valid bench warrant for unpaid traffic citations did not shock the conscience. While delays in completing his processing, in part due to problems with a new computer system, were unfortunate and "upsetting," they did not constitute a violation of his constitutional due process rights. Luckes v. County of Hennepin, No. 04-3156, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 15437 (8th Cir.). [2005 LR Sep]
     Trial court improperly granted summary judgment for defendants in domestic violence arrestee's lawsuit claiming that he was unlawfully detained for four days without being arraigned, and that he was then unlawfully evicted from his home by being threatened with another arrest if he did not leave there. If his version of events was true, several supervisory officers knew he was being detained for an unreasonable time period without being brought before a judge, but failed to intervene. Turner v. City of Taylor, No. 03-2636, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 11233 (6th Cir.). [2005 LR Aug]
     Sheriff was not entitled to qualified immunity on detainee's claim that he was arrested by deputies without a warrant and then detained unlawfully for eight days without a judicial determination of whether there was probable cause for the arrest. Lingenfelter v. Board of County Commissioners of Reno County, Kansas, #04-1244, 359 F. Supp. 2d 1163 (D. Kan. 2005). [N/R]
     Police officers' refusal to issue desk appearance tickets and release arrested gay rights demonstrators immediately after their arrest was not objectively unreasonable, so trial court properly dismissed lawsuit claiming that the prolonged post-arrest detentions violated due process. Appeals court further finds that the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness standard was the proper one to apply. Bryant v. City of N.Y., No. 04-0199, 404 F.3d 128 (2d Cir. 2005). [2005 LR Jun]
     Deputy did not violate motorist's rights by continuing to detain him after he passed a field sobriety test at a checkpoint. The deputy had reasonable questions concerning the motorist's use of a dealer plate on his car, and the motorist himself contributed to the length of the detention by arguing with the deputy about motor vehicle laws. Motorist was only arrested after he refused to sign a citation for his alleged unlawful use of a dealer plate, and himself demanded that he instead be taken before a magistrate judge. Gross v. Pirtle, #01-2337, 116 Fed. Appx. 189 (10th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
     Elementary school's detention and questioning of ten-year-old student after her classmates claimed that she had brought a handgun to school, and the subsequent involvement of police officers in continuing to detain and question her, and searching the school grounds for the gun, did not violate the constitutional rights of either the student, or her mother, who was not notified of the detention or questioning until it was over. Wofford v. Evans, No. 03-2209, 390 F.3d 318 (4th Cir. 2004). [2005 LR Mar]
     Motorist's 38-day detention before a first appearance before a judge following an arrest by warrant violated his right to due process and shocked the conscience. Detainee was properly awarded $50,000 in damages and $46,929.50 in attorneys' fees and costs. Hayes v. Faulkner County, No. 03-3787 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 22521 (8th Cir. 2004). [2004 LR Dec]
     City's procedures for obtaining a post-arrest probable cause determination in warrantless arrests did not violate constitutional requirements, despite not requiring a personal appearance of the arrestee before the magistrate and the use of a pre-printed form for the officer to fill out and submit along with the arrest report and related records. Jones v. City of Santa Monica, No. 03-55211 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 19046 (9th Cir. September 10, 2004) [2004 LR Nov]
     Deputy sheriffs did not violate an apparently intoxicated individual's rights by detaining him and transporting him to the hospital, despite having no reason to suspect that he committed any crime. Under the deputies' "community caretaking" function, they were justified in detaining him when he was found walking along a roadway in a rural area in the winter without proper winter clothing. Additionally, they were justified in assisting, at the hospital, with his involuntary catheterization, when they were merely helping medical personnel to carry out health care decisions to which they did not assist in making. Tinius v. Carroll County Sheriff Department, 321 F. Supp. 2d 1064 (N.D. Iowa 2004). [N/R]
     U.S. Supreme Court grants review on case involving the scope of permissible detention and questioning of persons, not suspected of crime, found inside a residence during the execution of a search warrant. Mena v. Simi Valley, Calif., 332 F.3d 1255 (9th Cir. 2003), cert. granted, Muehler v. Mena, No. 03-1423, 2004 U.S. Lexis 4190 (June 14, 2004). [2004 LR Jul]
     Police officers who responded to a radio call for back-up during a traffic stop were entitled to qualified immunity in motorist and passengers' lawsuit challenging the reasonableness of the detention and its length, as they did not personally participate in the stop and detention and were entitled to rely on statements made by the officer who had observed the vehicle and the alleged grounds for the stop. Lewis v. City of Topeka, Kansas, 305 F. Supp. 2d 1209 (D. Kan. 2004). [N/R]
     County sheriff was not liable for false imprisonment for taking plaintiff into custody and continuing to hold him when court sentencing order and release order were ambiguous concerning when and how he should be released from custody on contempt charge for failing to appear at court proceeding. Emory v. Pendergraph, No. COA01-1591, 571 S.E.2d 845 (N.C. App. 2002). [N/R]
     Officers were not entitled to summary judgment on claim that they detained a shopping mall customer on suspicion of shoplifting without reasonable grounds to do so, but plaintiff customer failed to adequately allege a claim against the city for failure to train officers in arresting, detaining, and interrogating racial and ethnic minorities by citing only this incident in which officers allegedly subjected him to illegal seizure. Hall v. City of White Plains, 185 F. Supp. 2d 293 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). [2002 LR Jun]
       343:102 NY officials reach $3.25 million settlement in lawsuit over mistaken two-year imprisonment of mentally ill homeless man extradited to the state after being misidentified as a fugitive drug dealer. Sanders v. N.Y. Depart. of Corrections, No. 97 Civ. 7112 (DAB), U.S. Dist. Ct. (S.D.N.Y. April 12, 2001), reported in The New York Times, National Edition, p. A14 (April 13, 2001).
     EDITOR'S NOTE: In a case brought by the same plaintiff against the California county where the man was first misidentified and detained before extradition to New York, a $290,000 settlement was reached. Lee v. County of Los Angeles, No. No. CV-96-07268-WMB, U.S. Dist. Court (C.D. Cal. 2001). Claims against the city police department there, remain pending. Lee v. City of Los Angeles, No. 98-55807, 250 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2001). (Overturning dismissal of federal civil rights claims under the First and Fourth Amendment against city and four individual police officers and ruling that plaintiff should have an opportunity to amend a disability discrimination claim under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) which the trial court had dismissed with prejudice).
     343:108 Officers were entitled to qualified immunity on claim that their search warrant for a residence was overbroad, when they could reasonably have believed that the residence was a single family home with multiple unrelated occupants; once they realized, however, that some rooms were separate living units, the scope of the permissible search would narrow, and further detention, at that point, of residents of other rooms might also become unreasonable. Mena v. City of Simi Valley, No. 99-56720, 226 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2000).
     339:42 Officer was not liable for detention of landlord, which allegedly caused his collapse because he needed access to his oxygen and medical equipment to prevent reoccurrence of recent stroke, when officer had no information concerning landlord's medical condition when she detained him while attempting to resolve landlord-tenant dispute over tenant property. Loudes v. City of Minneapolis, Minn., 233 F.3d 1109 (8th Cir. 2000).
     326:28 Aggressive campaign of seizing allegedly intoxicated individuals and taking them to detoxification facility for treatment evaluation without probable cause that they were dangerous to themselves or others violated Fourth Amendment. Anaya v. Crossroads Managed Care Systems, Inc., #97-1358, 195 F.3d 584 (10th Cir. 1999).
     328:54 Man who pled "no contest" to manslaughter charges and was sentenced to time served after his murder conviction was overturned because of the withholding of evidence by police could not recover damages for his period of incarceration; trial judge properly set aside first jury's $1.5 million award. Olsen v. Correiro, #96- 1425, 189 F.3d 52 (1st Cir. 1999).
     328:55 State troopers were not liable for continuing to hold, for a day and a half, arrestee taken into custody pursuant to a valid arrest warrant, after they gradually began to suspect he was not the person actually sought; arrest warrant was issued based on original suspect having assumed another man's identity. Brady v. Dill, #98- 2293, 187 F.3d 104 (1st Cir. 1999).
     329:69 Officers not liable for failure to release arrestee after they allegedly learned he was not the suspect in an attack; arrestee was taken into custody under valid warrant and officers did not have authority to release him without a judicial order. Miller v. Bd. of County Commissioners of County of Rogers, 46 F.Supp. 2d 1210 (N.D. Okl. 1999).
     317:72 Officers did not violate rights of motorist arrested for failing to sign a traffic citation when they failed to bring him before a judge for twenty-eight hours after his arrest. Stricker v. Kuehl, 26 F.Supp. 2d 1344 (M.D. Fla. 1998).
     294:88 New York state statute, interpreted as making delay in arraignment for over 24 hours "presumptively unnecessary," did not give arrestee the right to recover damages under state law for an arraignment delay of 36 hours; federal appeals court also finds that violation of this statute could not be the basis for a federal civil rights claim Watson v. City of New York, 92 F.3d 31 (2nd Cir. 1996).
     295:103 Officers' overnight detention of domestic violence arrestee, when magistrate was not available to conduct arraignment, did not constitute an unreasonable "delay for delay's sake"; twenty-two hour detention did not violate arrestee's constitutional rights, so officers were entitled to qualified immunity Brennan v. Township of Northville, 78 F.3d 1152 (6th Cir. 1996). 285:136 While keeping an intoxicated man in protective custody for a second twelve hour period clearly violated a Massachusetts state statute, officers were entitled to qualified immunity since it was not clearly established that this would violate the Fourth Amendment; further, officers could have reasonably believed that man consented, and testified that he was incapacitated and they kept him in custody "for his own good" Ringuette v. City of Fall River, 906 F.Supp. 55 (D.Mass 1995). [Cross-reference: Defenses: Qualified (Good-Faith). Immunity]
     265:8 Police chief and police department were not liable for arrestee's detention for fourteen months in county jail without being formally charged with a crime; detainee was not in their custody during that period, and mere fact that chief knew that plaintiff had been arrested and lack of written procedures for conducting criminal investigations were insufficient grounds for imposing liability Tilson v. Forrest City Police Dept, 28 F.3d 802 (8th Cir. 1994).
     265:9 Arrestees incarcerated for months before charges were dismissed when complaining witness did not appear at trial could not hold city liable based on alleged failure of prosecutor to screen cases or expedite trial preparation after probable cause was found at preliminary hearing Reed v. City and County of Honolulu, 873 P.2d 98 (Hawaii 1994).
     California appeals court rules that there is no right to use "reasonable force" to resist an allegedly unlawful detention; $318,75714 jury award to detainee whose neck was broken during alleged altercation with officer overturned on basis of erroneous jury instructions Evans v. City of Bakersfield, 27 Cal 2d 406 (Cal App. 1994).
     Holding already processed sex crimes arrestee in detention without a probable cause determination for 45 hours in order to investigate other suspected crimes violated his right to a prompt judicial determination Willis v. City of Chicago, 999 F.2d 284 (7th Cir. 1993). cert denied, 114 S.Ct. 879 (1994).
     California appeals court rules that there is no right to use "unreasonable force" to resist an allegedly unlawful detention; $318, 75714 jury award to detainee whose neck was broken during alleged altercation with officer overturned on basis of erroneous jury instructions Evans v. City of Bakersfield, 27 Cal 2d 406 (Cal App. 1994).
     Holding already processed sex crimes arrestee in detention without a probable cause determination for 45 hours in order to invesigate other suspected crimes violated his right to a prompt judicial determination Willis v. City of Chicago, 999 F.2d 284 (7th Cir. 1993), cert denied, 114 S.Ct. 879 (1994).
     Holding an arrestee in custody for four days before taking her before a judge for arraignment because she would not submit to booking procedures was a violation of her constitutional rights Hallstrom v. City of Garden City, 991 F.2d 1473 (9th Cir. 1993).
     Arrestees seized without warrants are entitled to probable cause hearings "no later" than 48 hours after arrest County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 111 S.Ct. 1661 (1991).
     Bringing additional charges against arrestee for "impairing the operation of a vital public facility" because he refused to give his social security number was not a reasonable charge; complaint stated claim for conspiracy to instigate false charges to coerce dismissal of separate civil rights lawsuit Duvall v. Sharp, 905 F.2d 1188 (8th Cir. 1990).
     One and one-half day detention of misdemeanor arrestee was not unreasonable when arrestee also had an outstanding arrest warrant for failure to appear in court Cemond v. Smith, 753 F.Supp. 713 (N.D.Ill. 1990).
     Sheriff's failure to resolve doubts about arrestee's identity in three month period was objectively unreasonable Tillman v. Coley, 886 F.2d 317 (11th Cir. 1989).
     No violation of civil rights to arrest and detain homeless man for 288 days when he was material witness to homicide White By Swafford v. Gerbitz, 892 F.2d 457 (6th Cir. 1989).
     Shoplifting arrestee subjected to weekend detention because of mistaken identification as subject of outstanding robbery warrant could not recover for wrongful detention Golden v. City of Cleveland, 51 Ohio App. 3d 39, 554 N.E.2d 148 (1989).
     No civil rights violation when sheriff detains suspect arrested with warrant for three days even though wrong individual had been arrested Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 99 S.Ct. 2689 (1979).
     Sheriff could be liable for criminal commitment when plaintiff should have been in civil section of jail Marshon v. City of New York, 451 N.Y.S.2d 106 (App1982).
     Sheriff liable for continued detention of individual after grand jury had "no-billed" him Williams v. Heard, 533 F.Supp. 1153 (S.D.Tex. 1982).
     Federal court finds Texas officer immune from liability for federal civil rights violation for jailing plaintiff after traffic stop; sends case to jury on issue of failure to take before a magistrate, a claim based on state tort liability Rheaume v. Texas Department of Public Safety, 666 F.2d 925 (5th Cir. 1982).
     District court enjoins Houston, Texas from detaining persons arrested longer than "94 hours without taking them before a judicial officer for determination of probable cause Sanders v. City of Houston, 543 F.Supp. 695 (S.D.Tex. 1982).
     Jailers not liable for incarceration of falsely arrested prisoner Wood v. Worachek, 618 F.2d 1225 (7th Cir. 1980).
     Officer not guilty of unlawfully detaining plaintiff in jail overnight for traffic violation because the magistrate was unavailable Valadez v. City of Des Moines, 324 N.W.2d 475 (Iowa 1982).
     Arrestees may not be detained longer than 24 hours before being taken to a magistrate Sanders v. City of Houston, 543 F.Supp. 694 (S.D.Tex. 1982).
     Pretrial detention of juveniles held unconstitutional Martin v. Strasburg, 689 F.2d 365 (2nd Cir. 1982).
     Prisoner awarded damages for unreasonable delay in being transported Occhino v. United States, 686 F.2d 1032 (8th Cir. 1982).
     Even though officer's arrest of plaintiff for eating on bus violated state law it did not violate federal law and thus presented no constitutional rights violation Fisher v. Washington Metro Area Transit Authority, 690 F.2d 1133 (4th Cir. 1982).
     County ordered to hold probable cause hearing no longer than 24 hours after warrantless arrest Bernard v. City of Palo Alto, 699 F.2d 1023 (9th Cir. 1983).
     Good faith reliance on department regulation precludes police officers' liability for improper detention Moore v. Zarra, 700 F.2d 329 (6th Cir. 1983).
     Detainment and request for identification was reasonable Vickroy v. City of Springfield, Mo, 706 F.2d 853 (8th Cir. 1983).
     Prisoner claiming he was not immediately released from jail despite court order releasing him has class action standing; case includes a discussion of class action suits Lewis v. Tully 99 F.R.D. 632 (N.D.Ill. 1983).
     City allowed to enforce federal immigration laws by making arrests of violators Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 722 F.2d 468 (9th Cir. 1983).
     Deletion for failure to pay court costs constitutes unlawful imprisonment In Re Rinehart, 462 N.E.2d 448 (Ohio App. 1983).
     City liable for officer's locking minor children in jail following Mother's arrest for traffic violation Martini v. Russell, 582 F.Supp. 136 (CD Ca 1984).
     No liability to sheriff and warden for improperly incarcerating plaintiff for not paying traffic fines Zuranski v. Anderson, 582 F.Supp. 101 (N.D.Ind 1984).
     Attorney's fees awarded against magistrate enjoined from arresting individuals for nonjailable offenses Pulliam v. Allen, 104 S.Ct. 1970 (1984).
     Entering home was proper to investigate noise complaints Mann v. Mack, 202 Cal.Rptr. 296 (App. 1984).
     Decision to take child into custody afforded immunity Del Valle by Sigette v. Taylor, 587 F.Supp. 514 (D.N.D. 1984).
     Motorist arriving to pay bond ends up incarcerated after escorted through wrong door Trezevant v. City of Tampa, 741 F.2d 336, (11th Cir. 1984).
     Two-hour detainment not a violation Wilson v. Walden, 586 F.Supp. 1235 (WD Mo 1984).
     Jury to decide whether officers reliance on newspaper photo to identify robber was reasonable Deary v. Three Unnamed Police Officers, 746 F.2d 185 (3rd Cir. 1984).
     Unconstitutional to use jails for confining persons awaiting commitment proceedings Lynch v. Baxley, 744 F.2d 1452 (11th Cir. 1984).
     Sheriff immune for arrestee's 18-day delay to magistrate Coleman v. Fraritz, (7th Cir. 1985).
     Pro se plaintiff allowed to amend his complaint Satchell v. Dilwaorth, 745 F.2d 781 (2nd Cir. 1984).
     Personal checks not accepted for bond; monitoring arrestee's phone conversation not considered preconviction punishment Eischen v. Minnehaha County, 363 N.W.2d 199 (S.D.1985).
     Suit accuses defendants of placing plaintiff on mental hold to coerce confession Rex v. Teeples, 753 F.2d 840 (10th Cir. 1985).
     Officer shielded from liability for stopping truck-driver Brierley v. Schoenfeld, 781 F.2d 838 (10th Cir. 1986). Improper lineup doesn't subject police to liability Hensley v. Carey, 633 F.Supp. 1251 (N.D.Ill. 1986).
     High state court upholds protective custody provisions Hontz v. State, 714 P.2d 1176 (Wash 1986).
     60-hour-detention without judicial determination automatic fourth amendment violation; reason for delay irrelevant Mabry v. County of Kalamazoo, 626 F.Supp. 912 (WD Mich 1986).
     Policy of detaining all misdemeanor arrestees until fingerprints can be cleared violated fourth amendment Doulin v. City of Chicago, 662 F.Supp. 318 (N.D.Ill. 1987).
     Allegation that arrestee was held 24 hours without hearing in order to build case against him stated claim; racial animus can be alleged without attributing racial statements to all defendants Hunt v. Jaglowski, 665 F.Supp. 681 (N.D.Ill. 1987).
     Detention of arrestees for twenty-four hours without seeing judge violates fourth amendment Williams v. Ward, 671 F.Supp. 225 (S.D.N.Y. 1987).
     Arrestee can constitutionally be kept up to 72 hours in New York without arraignment Williams v. Ward, 845 F.2d 374 (2d Cir. 1988).
     Continued detention of arrestee after police obtained information implicating another person was at most, negligent; no civil rights liability Simmons v. McElveen, 846 F.2d 337 (5th Cir. 1988).