Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Commentary : In Their Opinion : Lawyer & Attorney Michael E. Rigney : Kelley Drye & Warren Law Firm

ALEMAN v. VILLAGE OF HANOVER PARK (November 21, 2011)

Rick Aleman operated a daycare in his Hanover Park home. Joshua, one of the children in his care, had been feverish and lethargic his first two days under Aleman’s care. Then, on the third day, he stopped breathing. Aleman picked him up and shook him gently to see if he could get a response. Getting none, he performed CPR and then called 911. Joshua was taken to the hospital and Aleman was taken to the police station. He was held for several hours without questioning and then questioned for several hours. Although Aleman was allowed to call his lawyer several times, and his lawyer told the police that he was invoking his right to remain silent, Aleman eventually signed a waiver. The police told Aleman the three doctors told them that a shaking caused Joshua's injury. They were lying. Based on the statements, Aleman "admitted" that he must have shaken the baby too hard and hurt him. At the same time, he continued to express his disbelief that he could have caused the injuries. Aleman was charged with aggravated battery. A few days later, Joshua died. Aleman was rearrested and charged with first-degree murder. The charges were eventually dropped. Doctors explained that a child could go for a few days, usually in a lethargic state, after being shaken but before losing consciousness. The investigation also disclosed that Joshua's mother had a criminal record and had beaten and shaken Joshua in the past. In addition, one of the lead investigators had apparently developed a sexual attraction to Joshua's mother and did what he could to steer the investigation toward Aleman. Aleman brought suit pursuant to § 1983 against several state and local police officers. Judge Bucklo (N.D. Ill.) granted summary judgment to the defendants. Aleman appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Cudahy, Posner, and Wood affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part. The Court quickly concluded that the first arrest was supported by probable cause. Aleman was the last person to be with Joshua and admitted shaking him, the doctors believed his injury resulted from being shaken, and the information about Joshua's mother was not yet known. The second arrest was a constitutional violation, however. By that time, one of the officers had already lied to one of the doctors and obstructed the investigation into Joshua’s mother. The police also engaged in improper tactics during their interrogation. The interrogation itself also violated Miranda. Aleman invoked his right to counsel on more than one occasion. The police should have terminated the interrogation until a lawyer was present or until Aleman initiated a conversation. Instead, they badgered him into signing a waiver. Since the statements he made were critical elements of the murder charge, the Miranda violation is actionable under § 1983. In addition to the Miranda violation, the content of the interrogation was also improper. Aleman is not a medical expert but was given (false) information that he must have been the cause of Joshua's injury. The false information distorted his ability to make a rational choice. Finally, with respect to the malicious prosecution under state law, the Court again distinguished between the first and second arrest. Illinois law requires proof of malice in a malicious prosecution action. Given the circumstances of the first arrest, the district court was correct in granting summary judgment to the defendants. With respect to the second arrest, however, a reasonable jury could find that the officer who obstructed justice and tried to protect Joshua's mother, at Aleman’s expense, had improper motives. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

FRIZZELL v. SZABO (July 27, 2011)

Thomas Frizzell was on his way to work one November afternoon in Springfield, Illinois when Sangamon County Sheriff’s Deputy Carl Szabo noticed (he asserts) that Frizzell was not wearing a seatbelt. Szabo followed Frizzell for several minutes, until Frizzell arrived in the parking lot of his place of employment. Their accounts of what happened next differ substantially. Deputy Szabo testified that Frizzell ignored his instructions to return to his car, ran toward the door of the building, and attempted to enter the building. Frizzell asserts that he was in a hurry because he was late for work, that he did not originally realize that Szabo was talking to him, and that he wanted to clock in before talking so as not to be late. In any event, Szabo used his taser on Frizzell. When Frizzell continued to ignore orders to stay down, Szabo tased him several more times. Finally, Szabo used pepper spray and physically subdued Frizzell. Frizzell lost his job and claims that he felt weak and tired for several weeks following the incident. He did not, however, seek medical treatment. Frizzell brought suit against Szabo pursuant to §§ 1983 and 1988 for excessive force and false arrest. Szabo brought a counterclaim for battery, seeking $75,000. After trial, Judge Scott (C.D. Ill.) refused to give a nominal damages instruction. She changed her mind and gave such an instruction, however, after the jury sent back a note asking if they had to award damages if they found in plaintiff's favor. The jury found against Frizzell on the false arrest claim, found against Szabo on the counterclaim, and found in Frizzell's favor on the excessive force claim but awarded nominal damages. Chief Judge McCuskey (C.D. Ill.) denied a motion to alter the award and also denied attorney's fees. Frizzell appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Kanne and Evans and District Judge Clevert affirmed. The Court noted that a nominal damages instruction can be appropriate where: a) an officer uses both justifiable and excessive force but any injury relates to the justifiable force, b) where a jury might conclude that the evidence of injury is not credible, or c) where the degree of the injury itself does not support greater damages. The Court found two of those situations in this case. First, the jury could have concluded that the use of the taser was justifiable but the pepper spray afterwards was not -- but that Frizzell's injuries related only to the use of the taser. Second, Frizzell produced very little evidence of injury related to the pepper spray. The district court did not err in giving the instruction or in denying the motion to alter the judgment. The Court turned to the motion for attorney's fees. On that issue, the district court properly considered the difference between the amount plaintiffs sought and the actual award, the significance of the legal issue at stake, and the litigation's public purpose. The Court agreed that those factors weighed against any award of fees. First, although Frizzell never requested a specific award at trial, he did refer to Szabo's $75,000 counterclaim request as a starting point. The difference between $1.00 and anything near $75,000 is significant. Second, Szabo did not prevail on his false arrest claim and prevailed without measurable damages on his excessive force claim. He cannot claim that he prevailed on any significant legal issue. Finally, there was no public purpose served by the litigation. It was simply a private injury.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 BROOKS v. CITY OF AURORA (July 6, 2011)

Early one June evening in 2008, two Aurora police officers were staking out a location suspected of being a front for drug activity when they observed Michael Brooks driving through an adjacent parking lot. They knew Brooks but had never seen him drive. When they checked, they discovered that his license had been suspended for over a decade. Before they could take any action, however, they were called away. One of the officers later completed a traffic ticket and obtained a warrant for Brooks's arrest. The police served the warrant a few weeks later. When they arrived at his apartment, Brooks was barbecuing. An officer took him aside and explained the reason for the visit -- that he was under arrest. Brooks denied driving the car, claimed that it was not even working at the time, pulled his wrists away, and started backpedaling and waving his arms. The officer fired two bursts of pepper spray and ultimately immobilized Brooks. He was arrested and charged with the driving offense and resisting a peace officer. He was acquitted of both charges. Brooks filed suit against the police officers and the City of Aurora pursuant to § 1983. He alleged false arrest, false imprisonment, and excessive force. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the false arrest and excessive force claims and asserted qualified immunity on the excessive force claim. Judge Coar (N.D. Ill.) found probable cause and granted summary judgment on the false arrest claim. Sua sponte, he granted summary judgment on the false imprisonment claim for the same reason. Finally, he found that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the excessive force claim.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Ripple and Tinder affirmed. The Court first addressed probable cause on the false arrest and imprisonment claims. Probable cause depends on the facts and circumstances at the time of the arrest and whether a prudent person, with the officers knowledge, would believe that the suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offense. The offense at issue here, resisting a peace officer, requires "a physical act of resistance or obstruction . . . that impedes, hinders, interrupts, prevents, or delays the performance of the officer’s duties, such as by going limp or forcefully resisting arrest." Although Brooks claims that he had no intent to resist (but just to tell his wife to bring his wallet to the station), the undisputed evidence in the record supports the proposition that a reasonable officer could have believed that he did. Although there is disputed evidence regarding whether Brooks was actually driving a car on the night in question, that evidence is not material. First, resisting even an unlawful arrest violates the statute. Second, Brooks was not actually arrested and detained until after the officers had probable cause to believe that he had resisted the arrest. The Court saw no error in the false imprisonment summary judgment. The analysis is the same for both claims and Brooks never proffered a reason why an opportunity to respond to the false imprisonment claim was necessary. With respect to the excessive force claim, the Court did not decide the deprivation prong of the qualified immunity test. It noted that courts have held the use of pepper spray appropriate in resisting arrest situations and that courts have considered it excessive if its use is unprovoked or gratuitous. Here, regardless of Brooks's intentions, a reasonable police officer could have concluded that he was resisting arrest and that the use of pepper spray would be appropriate. Therefore, the officer is entitled to qualified immunity.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

PARISH v. CITY OF ELKHART (July 30, 2010)

A jury found Christopher Parish guilty of the 1996 shooting of Michael Kershner in his Elkhart, Indiana home. Evidence uncovered during his post-conviction proceedings supported a different conclusion: that Kershner was shot in a drug deal and was not even in his home at the time, and that local police threatened witnesses and otherwise fabricated evidence in an effort to falsely convict Parish of the crime. Parish's conviction was vacated in 2006 by the Indiana Court of Appeals. The state then dropped all charges. Parish brought suit pursuant to § 1983, alleging the denial of a fair trial. He also brought state claims for false arrest, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”). Judge Lozano (N.D. Ind.) dismissed all but the § 1983 fair trial claim on statute of limitations grounds. The court granted Parish's request for a Rule 54(b) certification. Parish appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Flaum, and Williams affirmed in part and reversed in part. Parish conceded, at oral argument, the propriety of the dismissal with respect to the claims for false arrest and false imprisonment. Thus, the only issue on appeal is the dismissal of the IIED claim. The parties agreed that the statute of limitations for the claim is two years from the date it accrued. The Court discussed four cases in its analysis of when an Indiana IIED claim accrues. In Heck, the Supreme Court held that a state prisoner could not bring a § 1983 suit for damages until his conviction was overturned. A judgment would have implied the invalidity of his conviction – the claim was therefore an improper collateral attack on the conviction. An Indiana appellate court followed Heck in Scruggs, when it dismissed false imprisonment claims. The Scruggs plaintiffs, still imprisoned, were also attacking the validity of their convictions. Next, in Wallace, the Supreme Court held that a claim for false arrest or false imprisonment requires a detention without legal process and therefore ends when legal process (e.g., appearance before a magistrate) is granted. The cause of action accrues at the same time -- when the false imprisonment ends. The Court distinguished Heck. Unlike in Heck, the Wallace claim for false imprisonment did not challenge the validity of a conviction. In fact, it did not even require a conviction. Finally, in Johnson, another Indiana appellate court concluded that a false arrest claim accrued at the time of arraignment (when process was granted) but that other claims of emotional discretion and invasion of privacy based on an unreasonable search accrued at the time of the search. Thus, the general rule requires an examination of whether the tort was complete before conviction (e.g., an IIED claim tied to an unreasonable search) or not (e.g. an IIED claim tied to a false conviction). If the former, the claim accrues upon completion of the tort. If the latter, the claim accrues upon completion of the tort unless it directly implicates the validity of the conviction. If it does, the claim does not accrue until the conviction has been lifted. Applying these principles to Parish's claim, the Court concluded that the IIED claims were not complete prior to conviction. In fact, the conviction was an integral part of Parish’s IIED allegations. The Court then concluded that the claim also attacks the validity of Parish's conviction and could not have been brought while the conviction was still outstanding. Parish brought the claim within two years of his exoneration – it is timely.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

BENTZ v. CITY OF KENDALLVILLE (August 14, 2009)

The local police arrived at the home of Dr. Bernard Leonelli, responding to reports of a domestic dispute. An officer observed a large fire on the front lawn and was told by bystanders that a fight was taking place inside the home. The officer approached Leonelli, who was standing on his front porch, and asked to speak with him. Instead, Leonelli walked into the house, where the officer observed him reaching for something. The officer entered the house, arrested Leonelli and searched the premises for a possible victim of domestic abuse. Leonelli brought an action against the city under § 1983, alleging that both the arrest and the search were unreasonable and unlawful. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. Leonelli appealed -- but died before the appeal was heard. His personal representative seeks to continue the appeal on his behalf.

In their opinion, Judges Cudahy, Posner and Kanne granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the appeal. Section 1983 is silent on whether a claim survives death. Instead, the Court stated, the state’s survival statute applies. A court must first characterize the § 1983 claim and decide which state tort is most analogous. With respect to the arrest claim, the Court noted that the plaintiff had to establish the fact of a seizure and its unreasonableness. The Court concluded that the closest Indiana tort was false imprisonment, the elements of which are almost identical to those for false arrest. Since an Indiana tort of false imprisonment does not survive the death of the plaintiff, neither does Leonelli's false arrest claim. With respect to the unlawful entry and search, the Court stated that the facts of the case were closely analogous to both a state trespass claim, which does survive, and a state invasion of privacy claim, which does not survive. The proper analysis, however, focuses on the elements of the federal claim, not the specific facts of the case. Looking at it from that perspective, the Court concluded that an expectation of privacy is the core of the unreasonable search claim. The federal claim is more analogous to invasion of privacy than it is to trespass. The claim does not survive.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

MCBRIDE V. GRICE (August 11, 2009) 

Dytaniel McBride owns and operates a clothing store in Peoria. One day, McBride got into a disagreement with one of his employees. She began calling him names and generally creating a scene. McBride summoned the police by activating an alarm. Instead of waiting for the police to arrive, however, he physically removed his employee from the store. She called the police and met them when they arrived in response to the alarm. A police officer interviewed both of the individuals and reviewed some portion of a security tape -- and then arrested both of them. After the charges against McBride were dismissed, he filed a lawsuit alleging that his constitutional rights were violated because of his arrest without probable cause. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. McBride appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Kanne and Sykes affirmed. The Court first addressed the burden of persuasion in a § 1983 case. The person complaining that he was arrested without probable cause bears the burden of establishing the absence of probable cause. The same holds true, added the Court, for a state law claim of illegal arrest. On the merits, the Court had little difficulty in finding probable cause. In fact, the employee told the police officer that McBride hit her in the head. A police officer is entitled to base his determination of probable cause on information he receives from the victim -- assuming he reasonably believes she is telling the truth. Although an officer should not ignore facts or inquiries that might clarify the situation, he may end his investigation once he is satisfied that probable cause exists. The witness’ statement and a scratch on her head were enough for the officer to reasonably believe that McBride committed the offense of battery under Illinois law. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

CATLIN v. CITY OF WHEATON (July 21, 2009)

Police officers from the City of Wheaton and several neighboring jurisdictions conducted a major law enforcement operation targeting a drug conspiracy in August of 2003. Several Wheaton police officers were given the task of arresting Robert Ptak. Ptak was considered armed and dangerous and had a history of resisting arrest. The officers were dispatched to a local motel where Ptak was believed to be staying. They had a photograph and a physical description and had been told that he was seen riding a yellow sport motorcycle. The officers located an individual that met Ptak’s physical description on a yellow sport motorcycle in the vicinity of the motel. Unbeknownst to the officers, however, the individual was not Ptak. It was Jonathan Catlin. According to Catlin, the officers jumped out of their vehicle while they were stopped at a traffic light and ran toward him. They grabbed him, threw him down, and eventually handcuffed him. They did not identify themselves as police officers until after the arrest. They soon realized their mistake and released Catlin within 20 minutes. Catlin brought an action for false arrest and excessive force under § 1983. The district court found that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and granted summary judgment. Catlin appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Cudahy, Posner and Kanne affirmed. The Court stated that Catlin had to show a violation of a constitutional right and that the right was clearly established at the time. With respect to the false arrest claim, the Court found no constitutional violation. The officers had a reasonable belief that the person they arrested was Ptak. The fact that they might have taken additional steps to be more certain does not affect the reasonableness of their belief. With respect to the excessive force claim, the Court stated that the reasonableness of force depends on the circumstances of the case. The Court conceded that summary judgment is frequently not appropriate in excessive force cases because of factual disputes. Here, given the absence of any factual dispute and the particular circumstances of who the police thought they were dealing with, the Court concluded that the presence of excessive force was a question of law. The Court was troubled by the officers' failure to identify themselves until after the arrest. Earlier identification might have reduced the need for the amount of force used. Even accepting it as a close question, however, the Court concluded that the right, if it existed, was not "clearly established." The Court was unaware of any court of appeals decision holding that police officers have a constitutional obligation to identify themselves when carrying out a public arrest. Qualified immunity therefore attached.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

BROOKS v. THE CITY OF CHICAGO (May 1, 2009)

Terence Brooks was arrested, allegedly without probable cause, in May 2004 by two Chicago police officers. The charges were dropped and he was released after about three weeks in custody. A few months later, he was indicted as a result of evidence seized at the time of the arrest. A warrant was issued when he failed to appear in court on the indictment. Brooks was arrested on the warrant by different police officers in May of 2007. Again, the charges were dismissed and Brooks was released. Brooks brought an action against the City of Chicago and the police officers who were responsible for the 2004 arrest. He brought due process and false arrest claims under § 1983, as well as claims under state law. The district court dismissed the complaint on the ground that, although it purported to complain of the 2007 arrest, it depended entirely on the 2004 arrest. Claims based on the 2004 arrest were barred by the statute of limitations. Brooks appealed.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Manion and Rovner affirmed. The Court recognized that Brooks' theory was that the 2007 arrest culminated from a series of events that began with the allegedly unlawful 2004 arrest. The Court noted, however, that the existence of the warrant supported probable cause for the 2007 arrest. One cannot maintain a false arrest claim based on an arrest made with probable cause. Even if Brooks had a false arrest claim in 2004, his arrest in 2007 cannot revive that claim. The Court also rejected Brooks' due process claim on the grounds that it was merely a recast false imprisonment claim.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link