AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Civil Liability of
Law Enforcement Agencies & Personnel
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
False Arrest/Imprisonment: Unlawful Detention
Monthly
Law Journal Article: The
Need for Prompt Probable Cause Hearings, 2012 (8) AELE Mo. L. J. 101.
Monthly Law Journal
Article: Civil
Liability for Detention for Mental Health Evaluation or Commitment, 2017
(1) AELE Mo. L. J. 101.
A city used a common parking ordinance enforcement practice known as “chalking.” Parking enforcement officers use chalk to mark the tires of parked cars to track how long they have been parked at a particular location. They then return to the car after the posted time for parking has passed, and if vehicles in the area still have chalk marks, indicating that the vehicle has not moved, a citation is issued. A motorist who frequently received such citations sued the city and a parking enforcement officer, arguing that chalking violated her Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search.The trial court ruled that, while chalking may have constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment, the search was reasonable. A federal appeals court reversed, characterizing the practice as a regulatory exercise. The chalking, the appeals court reasoned, involves a physical intrusion and is intended to gather information. While automobiles have a reduced expectation of privacy, the need to deter drivers from exceeding the time permitted for parking before they have even done so is not sufficient to justify a warrantless search under the community caretaker rationale. Taylor v. Saginaw, #17-2126, 922 F.3d 328 (6th Cir. 2019).
The plaintiff was convicted of 28 counts of felony murder for causing a fire at a hotel that caused 28 deaths. In 2013, he presented newly discovered evidence that showed that arson was not the cause of the hotel fire. He agreed to a plea deal in which the original convictions were vacated and he pled no contest to the same charges and was resentenced to time served and immediately released. He then sued the county and city in state court for federal civil rights violations—specifically violations of his right to due process and a fair trial. The lawsuit was removed to federal court. A federal appeals court ruled that a plaintiff in a federal civil rights lawsuit may not recover incarceration-related damages for any period of incarceration supported by a valid, unchallenged conviction and sentence. Exercising its discretion, the appeals court held that the plaintiff’s valid 2013 conviction and sentence were the sole legal causes of his incarceration, which took the place of his earlier conviction and sentence, and therefore he could not recover damages for wrongful incarceration. Taylor v. County of Pima, #17-16980, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 1545 (9th Cir.).
Two men were arrested under outstanding warrants and were held in a county jail for 30 days or more before they were arraigned in court. New Mexico state law required that their arraignment take place within 15 days of their arrest. They sued for a federal civil rights due process violation on the basis of this. A federal appeals court upheld the dismissal of the lawsuit for failure to state a claim. A violation of a state law requirement, standing alone, was not a basis for a federal civil rights claim. Moya v. Garcia, #17-2037, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 10306 (10th Cir.).
Officers who responded to a shooting incident involving the plaintiff’s father were entitled to qualified immunity for detaining her for four hours without probable cause. While this did violate her Fourth Amendment rights, her right not to be detained in this manner under these circumstances was not so clearly established that the officers could be liable. The Fifth Circuit, as well as other circuits, had determined that officers acting under similar circumstances—detaining a sole witness to an incident for questioning and investigative preservation—did not violate any clearly established right. The court reasoned that it followed that these officers similarly were not bound by any such clearly established law. Lincoln v. Colleyville, Texas, #17-10201, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 8629 (5th Cir.).
A federal agent was not entitled to qualified immunity for a prolonged detention in a parking lot of the plaintiff, an elderly woman, as she stood in urine-soaked pants, to question her following a search about her possession of a paperweight containing a rice-grain-sized particle of lunar material. He knew that she was a slight, elderly woman who had lost control of her bladder and had visibly wet her pants. She was unarmed and the search warrant had been fully executed. She had not concealed possession of the paperweights, but rather asked NASA for help in selling the paperweights, and the agent knew that she was experiencing financial distress as a result of having to raise grandchildren after her daughter died, her son was severely ill and required expensive medical care, and she needed a transplant. Under these circumstances, his detention of her was unreasonably prolonged and degrading. Davis v. United States, #15-55671, 854 F.3d 594 (9th Cir. 2017).
Parents and their two children sued a county and several of its social workers over the detention of the children for six months as a result of a child abuse investigation. The mother exhibited bizarre behavior and threatened hospital staff with violence after giving birth, asked that the child be placed “back inside” her, walked around unclothed, and asked a nurse to cut her ankles for bloodletting. The appeals court believed that exigent circumstances existed to detain the children without a warrant at the hospital, and that the father’s arrival after the children were detained did not alter matters. There was no evidence to show conduct by the social workers to establish a claim for deliberate indifference, or behavior that shocks the conscience. Further, numerous claims by the plaintiffs were barred by the parents’ pleas of no contest in dependency court. Gabrielle A. v. Co. of Orange, #GO51784, 2017 Cal. App. Unpub. Lexis 2105
A man was searched during a traffic stop
and a vitamin bottle containing pills was found. Officers conducted a field
test which proved negative for controlled substances. They arrested him and an
evidence technician at the police station also got a negative result for
controlled substances when he tested the pills but reported that one of the
pills tested “positive for the probable presence of ecstasy.” He was charged
with unlawful possession and a judge, relying solely on an officer’s complaint,
ruled that there was probable cause to hold the detainee pending trial. A state
police lab then again tested the pills and found no controlled substance, but
not before the detainee had been in custody for 48 days. The detainee sued the
city and its officers more than two years after he was arrested but less than
two years since the criminal case was dismissed. The U.S. Supreme Court
rejected lower court rulings that a two year statute of limitations barred an
unlawful arrest claim and that the pretrial detention after legal process was
initiated barred a Fourth Amendment claim. The Fourth Amendment prohibits
detention without probable cause. When the legal process has begun, but
probable cause was not satisfied, as here where the judge’s probable cause
determination was allegedly based on fabricated evidence, it does not cut off a
Fourth Amendment claim. The unlawful detention claim was properly brought under
the Fourth Amendment, rather than the due process clause. On remand, the
appeals court was ordered to hold further proceedings on when the claim
accrued, unless it found that the city waived its timeliness argument. Manuel v. Joliet, #14-9496,
197 L. Ed. 2d 312, 2017 U.S. Lexis 2021, 85 U.S.L.W. 4130.
Police
couducted a high-risk traffic stop and detention of a male motorist based on an
incident report from several hours earlier that a young man had displayed a
handgun to a store clerk. Since state law permits individuals who are at least
18 years old to open carry handguns in public and the city does not restrict an
individual's right to open carry except in certain locations, the incident
report was not sufficient to create reasonable suspicion that the young man
described had committed or was about to commit a crime. The officers could not
have objectively comcluded that the young man could not legally possess a
firearm. Further, no objectively reasonable officer would have mistaken the
plaintiff, a 58-year-old bald man who was a double amputee, for the young man
with hair described in the incident report. The trial court therefore erred in
granting three officers involved in the stop qualified immunity. Duffie v. City
of Lincoln, #15-2431, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 15418 (8th Cir.).
A man was detained and arrested as he sat in his
car in a school parking lot as he waited for his wife, who was employed there,
because he refused to produce identification. While the officer may not have
had reasonable suspicion to detain him, a federal appeals court found that the
arresting officer was entitled to qualified immunity. The detention was not objectively
unreasonable under clearly established law. The officer was not put on notice
that detaining a person for a failure to provide identification on school
property is definitively unlawful. While there were prior U.S. Supreme Court
cases which held that police may not detain an individual solely for refusing
to provide identification, those cases did not deal with incidents occurring on
school property. Gonzalez v. Huerta, #15-20212., 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 11530
(5th Cir.).
When a man reported to
police that there was some problem with his cable television reception, he rwas
trying to report that he thought a neighbor had wired in to his service to
steal cable television, but the officers, believing that he was saying someone
was "controlling his television took him for a mental health evaluation
and after the evaluation, he was detained for six days as a possible threats to
others. The plaintiff stated a viable claim that the officers lacked probable
cause to initially detain him. While he did quote from an incident report
prepared by the officers afterwards, his claim was based not on hearsay
contained in the report, but on his statement that he had no mental illness and
that the officers lacked probable cause to detain him based on the alleged facts
of the incident. Claims against the mental health evaluator and her employee
were properly dismissed as their screening report did provide a basis for
further detention. . Goines v. Valley
Cmty. Servs. Bd., #15-1589, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 8512 (4th Cir.).
A couple were out walking
with their daughter, grandson, and a dog. The man carried a cell phone,
holstered on his hip, next to a semiautomatic handgun. a motorcyclist passing
by stopped to complain about the visible weapon, and after a heated argument,
called 911. The dispatcher stated that the weapon was legal in Ohio with a
concealed carry weapon permit. An officer was dispatched, and took possession
of the man's weapon. The officer threatened to arrest the man for inducing
panic and placed him in handcuffs. After the officer discovered that the man
had a carry permit for the weapon, he released him while citing him for failure
to disclose personal information, a charge later dropped. The man had produced
his driver's license, but told the officer to look up his carry permit. While
the trial court rejected First and Second Amendment charges against the officer
on summary judgment, it permitted Fourth Amendment and state law claims to go
forward. A federal appeals court upheld this result. It noted that the officer
had the right to approach the plaintiff and ask him questions, but that Ohio
law permitted the man, with his permit, to do exactly what he was doing, openly
carry his firearm. The officer had no basis for uncertainty abut the law, and
had no evidence that the man was dangerous. All that he saw was that the man
was armed, and legally so. There was no basis for reasonable suspicion of
inducing panic or that the man needed to be disarmed, and allowing stops in
these circumstances would effectively eliminate Fourth Amendment protection for
legally armed persons. The court noted that "Not only has the State made
open carry of a firearm legal, but it also does not require gun owners to
produce or even carry their licenses for inquiring officers." While the
officer also claimed that the man made a "furtive motion" towards his
weapon before being disarmed, that was disputed and was an issue of fact for a
jury. A second officer, who did not arrive on the scene until after the
plaintiff was already handcuffed and placed in the back of the first officer's
car, however, was entitled to qualified immunity, as he had not detained,
disarmed, or handcuffed the plaintiff. Northrup v. City of Toledo Police
Dep't., #14-4050, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 7868, 2015 Fed. App. 0092P (6th Cir.).
A woman claimed that a
state trooper started harassing her in 2007, tailgating her in an off-duty
vehicle, parking behind her, and questioning her about her driving. When the
officer and the female motorist's adult son exchanged heated words, the officer
at first allegedly stated that the motorist would receive an additional ticket
because of her son's statements and then left without issuing any tickets when
the son stated that he would complain to the officer's supervisor. After the
motorist complained abut this, the officer, hours later, arrived at her home
and delivered three tickets. After her son mentioned the alleged harassment at
a restaurant, the trooper, accompanied by a fellow officer, again returned to
the home, resulting in a confrontation with the woman's son-in-law. A federal
appeals court ruled that a First Amendment retaliatory prosecution claim was
time barred as it was filed two years after the tickets were delivered to the
woman, which was the date the claim accrued, rather than the later date of the
trial when she was convicted on the tickets. The trial court erred, however, in
dismissing a Fourth Amendment constructive seizure complaint against the
trooper on the basis that the plaintiff failed to specifically identify in that
claim that she was proceeding under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 rather than merely
under the Fourth Amendment. Smith v. Campbell, #14-1468, 782 F.3d 93 (2nd Cir.
2015).
A high school student was detained for 23 days
while police investigated a schoolyard fight that caused the death of another
student. A video of the fight showed a male student who punched the victim as
he tried to stand up, and the plaintiff was identified as one of two assailants
by an officer assigned to the school, by another student, and by two school
staff members, who all viewed the video. Charges initially made against the
plaintiff were ultimately dropped when it was established that he was not
involved in the incident. A federal appeals court upheld summary judgment for
the defendant officers, finding that they had probable cause to make the arrest
on the basis of the identifications by those who viewed the video, so there was
no false arrest. As to the length of the detention, it was not excessive or
unreasonable, as there was no indication that any of the defendants imposed a
deelay for improper motives such as punishing the plaintiff or "drumming
up" evidence merely to justify his arrest. Bailey v. City of Chicago,
#13-3670, 779 F.3d 689 (7th Cir. 2015).
An officer approached a car he was
parked at night in a rural unlit area. Two men holding shotguns were
encountered, and he pointed his service revolver at them. An unlawful seizure
claim filed by one of the men failed. The officer had reasonable suspicion to stop
him for investigatory purposes when he observed him carrying a shotgun with a
second armed man in the area, particularly as the plaintiff failed to
immediately comply with the request to place his weapon on the ground. Under
the circumstances, the officer was justified in temporarily unholstering his
weapon and pointing it at both men while assessing the situation and gaining
control. The men outnumbered the officer and he did not know then that they
were there for purposes of hunting. Stiegel v. Collins, #14-1631, 2014 U.S.
App. Lexis 23116 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
SWAT officers armed with a search warrant seeking
illegal gaming equipment raided a Halloween party with hundreds in attendance.
Some partygoers were detained for up to 14 hours before they were questioned
and let go. A number of them said that an investigator violated their rights
against unlawful seizure by prolonging their detention beyond the conclusion of
the warranted search. A directed verdict for the defendant was reversed
because, under the facts alleged, a reasonable jury could conclude that the
search had ended before the questioning began, and the detentions went far
beyond a "brief" Terry investigatory search, lasting up to 14 hours
and as much as 7 hours beyond the defendant's estimation of when the search
ended. Guillory v. Hill, #G047446, 2015 Cal. App. Lexis 38.
A woman was detained by police in her employers
home while they were investigating her alleged misconduct, and they ordered her
to leave without taking with her a $10,000 check written to her by her
employer. A federal appeals court found no basis for liability on the part of
the officers. They had reasonable grounds for suspecting that she had
improperly obtained the check since she had only worked for the employer for 88
hours providing him home care. Forcing her to leave without the check was not
seizure of her. Her employer had severe cognitive impairments as a side effect
of his Parkinson's disease and officers would have been acting irresponsibly if
they allowed her to leave with the check, given their suspicions. Hamilton v.
Village of Oak Lawn, #12-3174, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 23481 (7th Cir.).
A man turned himself in after a warrant was
issued for his arrest for misdemeanor domestic assault. The affidavit for the
warrant said that the arrest would be without bail. The arrestee's request to
post bail or to speak to a judge was denied. The sheriff incorrectly told him
that he had to be held for at least 12 hours because of the charge of domestic
assault. That requirement actually only applied when there was a specific
finding that the arrestee was a threat to the alleged victim, and no such
finding was made. The next morning, a judge set bail and the defendant was
released. Charges were dropped ten months later. The county admitted to having
a policy of holding all domestic violence arrestees for at least 12 hours
regardless of circumstances. A federal appeals court upheld summary judgment on
a lawsuit claiming that the arrestee had been denied procedural due process and
the Eighth Amendment right not to be held on excessive bail. Regardless of any
provisions in state law, the Eighth Amendment relates to the amount of bail,
not its timing and there is no constitutional right to "speedy bail."
The Eighth Amendment does not require a particularized examination before bail
is set, and the use of a bond schedule to set the amount did not mean that it
was excessive. Since no constitutional liberty interest was involved, the due
process claim also failed. Fields v. Henry County., #11-6352, 701 F.3d 180 (6th
Circuit, 2012).
Detainees in the custody of the county sheriff on
Saturday night were not brought before a judge within the normal 48-hour
deadline for a probable cause determination because the county judges do not work
on weekends, and the chief judge took off early that Monday. The arresting
sheriff was not available on Monday morning and no other judge was available
Monday afternoon. An appeals court ruled that no individual defendant was
responsible for the delay, that the arresting officer could not have known that
he had to make alternate arrangements, since the unavailability of any judge
Monday afternoon was unanticipated. Additionally, no unconstitutional policy
caused the delay, so the county could not be liable. Jones v. Lowndes County,
#10–60941, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 7805 (5th Cir.).
A prisoner now serving a life sentence after a
murder conviction sued a sheriff and other defendants for failing to meet the
48-hour deadline after his arrest for a probable cause hearing. The federal
appeals court ruled that the delay was excusable and caused by the need to
determine where the murder occurred so that officers could decide which court
the arrestee should be brought before for jurisdictional purposes. As soon as
that was determined, the defendants promptly attempted to arrange a hearing
before the appropriate magistrate. The subsequent overnight delay was because
of the magistrate's unavailability. On these facts, the jurors properly found
that the delays were justified. Brown v. Sudduth, #09-60037, 675 F.3d
472 (Unpub. 5th Cir. 2012).
A New York man was convicted of and
incarcerated for over nine years for a murder he did not commit, with the
primary evidence against him being his confession containing non-public details
about the crime. After his exoneration, he sought damages against the state
under an "unjust conviction and imprisonment" statute. The plaintiff
claimed that he has a low IQ, dropped out of school in eighth grade, and was
suffering from AIDS-related dementia at the time of his interrogation. The
officers interrogating him were aware of these facts, and allegedly coerced him
into making a false confession. DNA evidence subsequently implicated another
man in the murder, who then confessed to the crime. The highest court in New
York ruled that the plaintiff's prior false confession did not bar his claim
for damages on the basis that he caused or brought about his own conviction.
Warney v. State of New York, #35, 2011 N.Y. Lexis 502 (NY).
A man sued a city and one of its police officers after
he was placed in handcuffs at his home by the officer, angry that he refused to
reveal the whereabouts of a friend suspected of sexual assault. When he then
agreed to show the officer where his friend lived, he was allegedly kept in
handcuffs in the back of a police vehicle for six hours outside his friend's
house. No charges were brought against either man. The lawsuit claimed the city
was liable for these actions because it maintained an official or de facto
policy of illegally arresting and detaining persons who were not suspected of
crimes and it had failed to train and supervise the officer properly. In a
trial on claims against the officer only, jury awarded $50,384 in compensatory
damages and $150,000 in punitive damages. A federal appeals court held that the
plaintiff could not proceed with claims against the city, as any recovery
against it would be duplicative of his recovery against the officer, and the
city was responsible for paying the judgment against the officer. All he could
recover in a further proceeding against the city was nominal damages of a
dollar, and the trial court could exercise its discretion to avoid a trial on
that basis. Manzanares v. City of Albuquerque, #10-2011, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis
25621 (10th Cir.).
During a child welfare check at the home of a
man and his girlfriend, a confrontation occurred that resulted in the officers
pulling their weapons on the couple, ordering them from the home, and then
leaving them handcuffed on the front sidewalk while the officers searched
inside. The officers went to the home because they received a call from a
neighbor suggesting a woman there was beating a toddler and putting him outside
the house in the rain, telling him that he would stay there until he shut up.
The couple told the officers that there was no child at the home. No child was
found there. The couple sued the police for violation of their civil rights,
and the trial court granted the officers qualified immunity. A federal appeals
court reversed, as the plaintiffs alleged facts which, if true, indicated that
the officers, while they may have had grounds for a brief investigatory
detention, could not, acting in an objectively reasonable manner, prolong the
detention and search the home. Lundstrom v. Romero, #08-2254, 2010 U.S. App.
Lexis 17136 (10th Cir.).
The City of Chicago has approved a $15.5 million
settlement of a federal class action civil rights lawsuit claiming that
officers engaged in abuse and unlawful detention practices in the handling of
suspects. The lawsuit claimed an "institutionalized system of police
torture," and included allegations of unlawful arrests without warrants,
the unnecessary shackling of suspects to walls or benches for prolonged periods
of time, and the denial of food and water or opportunities to use a bathroom.
The class was composed of persons detained overnight by Chicago police from
March 1999 through March of 2010. Over 500,000 people could be eligible to
share in the settlement, according to news reports, with most receiving between
$90 and $3,000. The city will pay $15 million towards the settlement with the
rest paid by an insurer. Up to $5 million in fees will go to the plaintiffs'
attorneys in fees and costs. Dunn v. City of Chicago, #04-CV-6804, U.S. Dist.
Ct. (N.D. Ill. May, 2010).
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).