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

PORTIS v. CITY OF CHICAGO (July 23, 2010)

The City of Chicago arrests thousands of individuals each year for crimes punishable only by monetary fines. These crimes include disorderly conduct, peddling, and minor traffic offenses, among others. The police procedure after such arrests is to confirm the identity of the individual, the existence of probable cause, and that the individual is not wanted for a more serious offense. At that point in the process, an individual is entitled to be released on a personal-recognizance bond. All that remains is the bond’s processing and approval and the return of any personal belongings that were taken upon the arrest. The individual is then released. A number of persons who were subjected to this process brought a class action against the City. They allege that if the period of time between the entitlement to release and the actual release exceeds two hours, the confinement is unreasonable and in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Judge Gettleman (N.D. Ill.) agreed and certified the question for appeal. The City appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Bauer and Evans accepted the appeal -- and reversed and remanded. The Court compared the district court's ruling with the Supreme Court's decision in McLaughlin. In that case, the Supreme Court adopted a 48-hour test for the reasonableness of the period between arrest and presentation to a magistrate. That test differed in two ways from the district court's test: first, it looked at the entire process between arrest and presentation rather than one phase of the process -- and second, the 48-hour test was a presumption rather than a bright line rule. McLaughlin specifically rejected the adoption of arbitrary bright lines by courts -- only a legislature should venture there. The reasonableness of a detention should be decided as a whole -- not with relation to its component parts -- and should be decided individually -- not as a class. So not only did the Court find error in the lower court's decision on the merits, it also directed the district court to decertify the class. The named plaintiffs may still proceed individually with their claims that their detention was unreasonable.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

JUNKERT v. MASSEY (June 21, 2010)

Roger Massey, the Sheriff of the DeWitt County, Illinois, began an investigation into a series of local burglaries. His investigation led him to Richard Baker. Baker provided much information to the police about his activities and those of Jeffrey McCall: a) he received stolen guns from McCall, b) he sold drugs with McCall, c) he named his cocaine source, d) McCall told him that McCall's attorney (a female) used cocaine, and e) McCall told him that he paid his attorney with stolen laptops. Massey corroborated some of the information from Baker. Additional investigation established that McCall's lawyer was Dodie Junkert, the only female lawyer in the county. Massey used the information from Baker in preparing an affidavit for a search warrant for Junkert's office and residence. When Massey informed Junkert of the existence of the search warrant, she admitted receiving the stolen laptops from McCall and arranged for their return. The police searched her office and home anyway. They found no computers but did find evidence of drug use. Junkert brought an action under § 1983, alleging that the Massey’s lack of probable cause for the search warrant violated her Fourth Amendment rights. A jury found in favor of Massey. Junkert appeals from Judge Mills' (C.D. Ill.) denial of her motion for judgment as a matter of law.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Evans, and Tinder affirmed. The Court addressed whether the affidavit provided probable cause for the search, applying a totality of the circumstances test. It focused on the degree of cooperation, the extent of personal observation, the amount of detail, the time interval, and whether the affiant appeared before the judge. The Court found the affidavit severely lacking -- it lacked personal observation, it specified no time period, and the affiant did not personally appear. Even with the other positive aspects of the affidavit, the Court found it "difficult to conclude" that the affidavit provided a substantial basis for the search. Without actually deciding whether probable cause existed, however, the Court addressed qualified immunity. It noted that Massey is personally liable for damages only if courts have held that a materially similar affidavit lacked probable cause or if the affidavit was so lacking that any reasonable officer would have known it lacked probable cause. The Court found neither. Notwithstanding the weaknesses in the affidavit, the Court concluded that there were enough indicia of probable cause to support Massey’s reliance on it. Massey was therefore entitled to a qualified immunity defense.

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

CARMICHAEL v. VILLAGE OF PALATINE (May 21, 2010)

Palatine police officer Timothy Sharkey stopped an automobile being driven by Albert Carmichael and Keith Sawyer as they returned to their motel parking lot. Sharkey searched both Carmichael and the automobile. He found marijuana and cocaine. When asked why he had pulled them over, Sharkey stated that it was because the automobile lacked a front license plate and had tinted windows. After fellow officer Steve Bushore arrived, Sharkey conducted a search of Sawyer. In the motel parking lot, he pulled Sawyer's pants down and shined a flashlight into his underwear. The officers let Sawyer go but arrested Carmichael on drug charges. They also cited him for having no functioning taillights. In his report, Officer Sharkey made no mention of the tinted windows or absence of front license plate. At a hearing on a motion to suppress the evidence, Sharkey testified that the reason for his stop was the non-functioning tail lights, not the license plate or tinted window. Other testimony established that the tail lights were functioning at the time of the stop. The trial judge suppressed the evidence and all charges were dropped. Carmichael and Sawyer sued the Village and the officers under § 1983. They alleged unreasonable search and seizure, false arrest, and excessive force, as well as state law claims. Judge Kendall (N.D. Ill.) granted summary judgment to the defendants. She concluded, on the search and seizure claim, that the fact that a window was tinted and the front plate was missing provided probable cause. On Sawyer's unreasonable search claim, she concluded that it was constitutional without any detailed examination of the manner in which it was carried out. The court found the remainder of the claims waived. Carmichael and Sawyer appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Ripple, Manion, and Williams affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part. A traffic stop is reasonable, said the Court, if the police have probable cause to believe that a violation has occurred. The inquiry is an objective one and focuses on what the officer knew at the moment of the stop. Here, the tinted window and missing license plate did constitute moving violations and could have supported a stop of the vehicle. However, the uncontroverted evidence is that Officer Sharkey was not aware of either violation at the time to stop. Therefore, probable cause did not exist. For much the same reason, the Court concluded that Sharkey was not entitled to qualified immunity. The Court also found summary judgment with respect to the search of Sawyer in error. Although the defendants purported to request summary judgment on all counts, they made no mention of this search in their brief in the district court. They bear the initial burden of demonstrating that the summary judgment requirements are met -- they failed to do so. Conversely, the district court was correct in concluding that the plaintiffs waived the remainder of their federal and state law claims because of their perfunctory response to the defendants' request for summary judgment on those issues.

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

STUART v. RECH (May 5, 2010)

Federal officers executed a search warrant at a company owned by James Stuart. Stuart filed a pro se motion seeking the return of property seized during the execution of the warrant. The matter was assigned to the magistrate judge who issued the warrant. The judge denied the motion, which he had treated as a Rule 41(g) motion for the return of property. A few months later, Stuart filed a second pleading naming only the agent who had applied for the warrant. In that pleading, Stuart sought damages for what he alleged was the unconstitutional seizure of chemical formulas worth millions of dollars. The district court denied the request on the ground that it was the equivalent of the earlier pleading. Stuart appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Posner, and Evans affirmed. The Court began, as an aside, by noting that the magistrate judge who denied the original pleading likely had no authority to do so. The appeal, however, related only to the denial of the second pleading. The Court concluded that the district court erred in treating that pleading as an equivalent to the 41(g) motion. The second pleading is nothing more or less than a common law action for damages against a federal officer who is alleged to have violated the Constitution -- more commonly known as a Bivens action. The complaint should not have been dismissed on res judicata grounds. Notwithstanding the lower court’s mistake, the Court affirmed the dismissal on other grounds. The only basis for Stuart’s claim of unconstitutionality is the “frivolous squared” theory that the federal government has no authority outside of federal property. It has no possible merit.

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

STOKES v. BOARD OF EDUCATION (March 19, 2010)

Nyokia Stokes has four children who attend the same elementary school in Chicago. One of her children, a third-grade daughter, had a problem with a classmate. Ebony Scott, the classmate's mother, paid a visit to Stokes' home one night and allegedly threatened her. Stokes and her mother, Carnelita Stokes, met with the police and the school principal, Johnny Banks, the next morning. Banks agreed to host a meeting between Stokes and Scott. When Stokes and her mother returned to the school that very afternoon to pick up Stokes' kindergarten daughter, they encountered Ebony Scott and her cousin in the school office. The factual accounts of what happened next vary. What is clear is that Scott, Scott’s cousin, and Stokes were involved in a lengthy physical and verbal altercation. Most accounts agree that Scott was the aggressor and Stokes was the victim. Approximately thirty kindergarten students entered the office during the altercation and became extremely upset. Banks arrived in the office as the altercation was ending. He instructed Scott and her cousin to go into his office and instructed Stokes and her mother to go to another room. Stokes' mother refused to leave and continued yelling at Banks. Banks swore out criminal complaints against all four women and they were arrested. They were released several hours later and the charges against them were dismissed. The Stokes sued Banks and the school district under § 1983, alleging a violation of their Fourth Amendment rights. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. The Stokes appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Manion, and Hamilton affirmed. The gist of the Stokes' complaint is that Banks lacked probable cause to swear out the criminal complaints. The existence of probable cause, therefore, is an absolute bar to recovery. Because the case was decided on summary judgment, the Court examined the record to see if there was a genuine dispute of material fact with respect to the existence of probable cause. A complaining witness is not expected to determine whether a person's behavior satisfies the essential elements of a crime. To the contrary, probable cause involves the exercise of judgment and depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. Here, even resolving factual disputes in the Stokes' favor, the record shows that Banks entered the room and found Stokes involved in a violent and loud altercation. Many young school children were in the same room and visibly upset. Those undisputed facts provide probable cause for Banks to sign a criminal complaint against Stokes. Although Stokes' mother was not actually involved in a physical altercation, she was in the same room and Banks knew that she was Stokes' mother. Her yelling and refusal to comply with Banks' request to leave contributed to the chaos. Thus, Banks had probable cause to sign the complaint against Carnelita . The facts that were developed after the incident supported the Stokes' position that they were the victims of the altercation and that they did nothing to incite it nor did they retaliate. Nevertheless, the Court noted that Banks was not required to conduct an investigation. He was responsible for maintaining order and had to do so quickly. He exercised the judgment of a reasonable person in taking the action that he did.

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

TULLY v. BARADA (March 17, 2010)

One night a resident of Rush County, Indiana, saw automobile headlights and another light near a bridge several hundred yards from his home. When he heard a shot coming from the same direction, he called the sheriff. He called the sheriff a second time when he heard a second shot. In responding to the report, Sheriff Chandler stopped a vehicle occupied by Michael Tully and a friend. There was a spotlight, a rifle, and a dead raccoon in the car. Both boys responded "yes" when Sheriff Chandler asked if they knew that shooting from a roadway is wrong. The county prosecutor, Paul Barada, charged both boys as juveniles with "shooting on or across a public highway." A trial court adjudicated Tully as a delinquent -- the appellate court reversed. Tully brought an action under § 1983 against Barada and the probation officer upon whose report his complaint was based. He alleged a constitutional right not to be summoned into court and prosecuted without probable cause. The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss, concluding that there is no such right. Tully appeals.

In their opinion, Circuit Judges Bauer and Wood and District Judge Kennelly affirmed. The Court first noted that the Supreme Court has not spoken on the possibility of a right not to be prosecuted without probable cause. The Courts of Appeals that have spoken have taken various approaches. In fact, the issue is infrequently presented because prosecutors generally claim absolute immunity. Here, the Court noted that defendants waived not only their affirmative defense of absolute immunity, but also the affirmative defenses of the existence of probable cause and res judicata. Having been required to reached the merits, the Court concluded that there is no federal constitutional right under either the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment not to be summoned into court and prosecuted without probable cause. Being summoned into court is not a "seizure" of Tully under the Fourth Amendment -- his state court vindication was due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.

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

WHITLOCK v. BROWN (February 24, 2010)

The Whitlocks were camping with their daughter at the Indiana Dunes State Park in July of 2005. They came across some personal property at what appeared to be a deserted camp site. They put the items in their vehicle and told a neighboring camper that they would turn it in to park rangers. Instead of turning it in immediately, however, they left the park and went shopping. Upon their return, they left a voicemail for the property owner (having obtained his number from information found in the property) advising him that they had his property and were going to leave it with the park ranger. The owner of the property had already reported it missing and park authorities were investigating. When the Whitlocks eventually turned in the property, they were accused of theft. The investigation confirmed the Whitlocks' explanation. State investigator Brown prepared a case report and an "Affidavit for Probable Clause." He sent the affidavit to the local county prosecutor's office, and there is a dispute over whether he attached his case report to it. The Whitlocks were charged with conversion and an arrest warrant was issued. When they were stopped for a traffic violation a month later, they were arrested and held in jail for four days before the prosecutor dropped the charges. The Whitlocks sued Brown under § 1983, specifically alleging that he withheld their explanation for why they held the property for so long from his case report or application for a warrant. The district court concluded that Brown did violate their Fourth Amendment rights by withholding the exculpatory information but also concluded that he was entitled to qualified immunity because a reasonable officer could have believed that probable cause to arrest the Whitlocks existed. The Whitlocks appeal.

In their opinion, Circuit Judges Posner and Sykes and District Judge Dow affirmed. Qualified immunity, stated the Court, involves two inquiries: whether there is a constitutional violation and whether a reasonable officer, considering clearly established law, would have known his actions were unconstitutional. Here, the claim is that Brown intentionally or recklessly withheld exculpatory information from the prosecutor, which could overcome the general presumption of the validity of the warrant. The information omitted, however, must be material to the existence of probable cause. The Court first addressed the alleged withholding of the case report itself. The district court had concluded that Brown withheld the report, inferring so from its absence from the prosecutor's file. The Court disagreed. Brown testified that he had submitted the case report. Although self-serving, the testimony was not speculation and was based on Brown's personal knowledge. In contrast, the Whitlocks presented no evidence or reasonable inference that the report was not sent. Although therefore concluding that the report itself was not withheld, the Court also considered an omission in the report -- Brown's failure to include the Whitlock's innocent explanation for why they did not turn in the property immediately. The Court turned to the materiality of that missing information. The statute upon which the warrant was based prohibits "unauthorized control over property" of another. It does not require an intent to permanently deprive. Although the Court hypothesized a situation in which the explanation could be material under a theory of implied consent from the owner of lost property, it found no such theory recognized under Indiana law. The Court concluded that a reasonable officer would not have known if the innocent explanation was material to probable cause and that Brown was therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

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

PARISH v. CHICAGO (February 3, 2010)

Michael Parish was arrested in May of 2005 and held in custody until June of 2007, when he was acquitted of a murder charge. Parish brought suit against the City of Chicago and several police officers under § 1983, claiming malicious prosecution in violation of the Fourth Amendment. He alleged, among other findings, that the officers suppressed favorable evidence, prepared false reports, and fabricated evidence. Parish conceded in the district court that the prevailing Seventh Circuit precedent of Newsome precluded his claim. The district court dismissed. Parish appeals

In their opinion, Judges Coffey, Evans, and Williams affirmed. In Newsome, the Seventh Circuit held that the existence of a state law malicious prosecution claim precludes a constitutional tort under the due process clause. Parish concedes as much but seeks reconsideration of Newsome in light of a footnote in the Supreme Court's subsequent opinion in Wallace. In that footnote, the Supreme Court stated that it had never and was not evaluating a §1983 Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution claim. The Court noted that it had already once rejected an invitation to revisit Newsome in Johnson v. Saville. It saw no reason to do so now. However, as an aside, the Court stated that Newsome did not preclude a Brady-type due process claim. Given Parish's allegations, he may well have had such a claim after his acquittal.

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

SUAREZ v. TOWN OF OGDEN DUNES (September 11, 2009)

William Suarez hosted a high school graduation party on the beach behind his parents' home in Ogden Dunes, Indiana. Beer was served. Around 11:00 p.m., a local police officer happened by and noticed the activity. While warning one young man for his illegal parking, he was verbally abused by several others. Believing that the party was getting out of control, the officer left to get help. Meanwhile, Suarez ended the party, put out the bonfire and invited a small group of his friends inside to spend the night. Suarez' mother, concerned that the police may return, instructed the boys to remain upstairs. The officer returned with a bevy of squad cars. He saw that there were still several cars in the driveway, although no people were present. Suspicious that the underage drinking was continuing inside the house, the officer telephoned a local judge for a search warrant. He described the earlier scene of abuse and fairly raucous behavior. He added that there were bottles in the back yard, that a number of teenagers retreated into the house and that teenagers hiding behind couches were visible through a window of the house. He got his warrant -- they broke down the door -- they arrested Suarez and his mother. William was wrestled and pepper-sprayed during his arrest. Suarez and his mother brought this action under § 1983, alleging an unlawful search and an unlawful arrest. William also complained of excessive force. Most of the case was resolved with summary judgment in the defendants' favor. The excessive force claim against three of the officers was tried to a jury, resulting in a defense verdict. William and his mother appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Williams and Tinder affirmed. The illegal search claim, stated the Court, depends on the existence of probable cause. Because the plaintiffs challenged the statements made by the officer to the judge, as opposed to the decision of the judge, they must show that the officer made false statements knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth and that the statements were necessary for the determination of probable cause. The Court first considered the claim that he made false statements by implying that he actually saw the teenagers retreat into the house and by omitting the fact that almost an hour elapsed between the earlier raucous behavior and his return to the home. The Court concluded that these were not materially false statements. The officer's earlier observations combined with the fact that a number of cars were still at the house supported an inference that the party was still taking place. The Court also rejected the claim that the officer did not personally observe every fact reported to the judge. He was entitled to rely on the collective knowledge of the gathered officers. Probable cause therefore existed and the search was lawful. The existence of probable cause for the search disposes of William's unlawful arrest claim. As for his mother's, the officers had reason to believe that she was permitting minors to consume alcohol in her home, a violation of Indiana law. Her arrest, also, was lawful.

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

GONZALEZ v. CITY OF ELGIN (August 20, 2009)

A number of former high school classmates attended a wedding. Afterward, they gathered at the home of one of them. They visited late into the night and early morning. As the group was about to break up, one of them (who had left earlier to go to a local restaurant) returned to tell the others that his wife and brother were being assaulted outside the restaurant. Several members of the group went to the restaurant. The fight was over and the attackers were gone – but the police had arrived. Here, the testimony in the record supports two versions of a story. Several members of the group described a situation in which a number of police officers were out of control. They testified to beatings, kicks, and pepper-sprays. The police, on the other hand, described an unruly mob, disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. The police arrested several of the group. Most of the charges were dismissed. Six members of the group brought an action against the City and several police officers. They alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment, under § 1983, for unlawful arrest, excessive force, and failure to intervene. They also alleged state law malicious prosecution and a respondeat superior claim against the City. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants and added that the defendants were also entitled to qualified immunity. Plaintiffs appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Flaum and Wood reversed and remanded. On the unlawful arrest claim, the Court noted that the plaintiffs had to show an arrest without probable cause. The Court reviewed the evidence in support of probable cause for the arrests for mob action, resisting arrest and battery. In each case, the Court concluded that the facts were contested. The plaintiffs’ version supported a conclusion that probable cause did not exist. On the excessive force claims, the Court again criticized the lower court for not viewing the facts in a light most favorable to plaintiffs. A reasonable jury could find that the police used greater force than necessary considering the totality of circumstances. For the same reason, the failure to intervene judgment was reversed. Next, the Court had little difficulty in rejecting the qualified immunity argument. The plaintiffs stated constitutional violations of an arrest without probable cause and the use of excessive force. Both constitutional rights are clearly established. Finally, the Court reversed with respect to the state law claims for much the same reason – there were genuine issues of material fact.

• 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

SCHOR v. CITY OF CHICAGO (August 13, 2009)

The City of Chicago passed an ordinance that prohibits the use of a mobile phone while driving unless it is used in conjunction with a "hands-free" device. Three individuals who were ticketed for violating the ordinance filed an action against the City, alleging violations of the Fourth Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause and Illinois law. The district court dismissed the claims and refused to allow an amendment to the complaint. The plaintiffs appealed.

In their opinion, Judges Manion, Rovner and Wood affirmed. The Court rejected the Fourth Amendment claim. The officers making the stops observed each plaintiff violating the ordinance. Those observations provided probable cause for the stop – and thus no Fourth Amendment violation. The Equal Protection Clause claim was a "class of the one" claim. To succeed on that claim, the Court stated, the plaintiffs had to show that they were treated differently and that there was no rational basis for the difference in treatment. Here, the drivers were treated differently than other drivers who were not using mobile phones. The basis for the differential treatment, however, was the violation of an ordinance -- clearly a rational distinction. The Court rejected the plaintiffs' Monell claims as well. A direct claim against a municipality must be based on an underlying constitutional violation, which is not present here. Finally, the Court concluded that the district court's refusal to allow an amendment to the complaint was not an abuse of discretion. In the amendment, the plaintiffs sought to include a claims that the ordinance violated their fundamental right to travel and a claim that the ordinance was void for vagueness. The plaintiffs failed to indicate how the ordinance infringed any right to travel or how its terms were so vague that an ordinary person could not understand.

• 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

BAIRD v. RENBARGER (August 3, 2009)

Joe Baird owned a body shop in Shelbyville, Indiana. After he purchased an antique automobile, he had his office call the police department to check the vehicle's motor number. Although an officer verified the number, he soon thereafter reported his suspicion to a prosecutor that the number was altered. He obtained a search warrant for the automobile and he and several other officers, including Officer Renbarger, executed the warrant. Officer Renbarger carried a 9 mm. submachine gun and rounded up a number of people in the surrounding shops and warehouses, including a group of Amish men. He held the individuals for almost two hours while the search was conducted. The officers located the car and concluded that the motor number had not been altered. Baird brought suit against the officers pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 1983. He alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment and state law claims for trespass, negligence and false imprisonment. The district court denied Renbarger's motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. Renbarger appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Flaum and Wood affirmed. The Court set out the two-step Saucier inquiry: whether a constitutional right has been violated and whether that right was clearly established at the time of the conduct. Whether the seizure was unreasonable is an objective test requiring an analysis of the severity of the alleged crime, the presence of an immediate threat and whether there is any resistance. Here, these factors all support the unreasonableness of the seizure. The only alleged crime concerned a vehicle motor number. No officer had any reason to believe there was any imminent threat. No one resisted the detention. The Court concluded that a jury could find that Renbarger violated Baird's rights. With respect to the second step of the inquiry, the Court concluded that it was clearly established that police officers are not entitled to point guns at citizens when there is no suggestion of any danger. The Court concurred with the district court's denial of qualified immunity.

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

JOHNSON v. SAVILLE (July 29, 2009)

For several years, Larry Johnson worked in a youth correctional facility in Illinois. When a former female inmate alleged that she and Johnson had sexual relations while she was an inmate, the Illinois Department of Corrections began an investigation. Illinois State Police Officer Karl Saville was assigned to the case. Saville gathered substantial evidence of Johnson's guilt, including several statements by the witness implicating Johnson. Saville was not aware of a prior statement by the same witness denying any sexual relations with Johnson. The State decided to prosecute Johnson. He was found not guilty in a bench trial. He later brought a § 1983 action against Saville, alleging malicious prosecution under both state and federal law. The district court granted summary judgment to Saville. Johnson appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Evans, Williams and Tinder affirmed. With respect to the state malicious prosecution claim, the Court stated that one element of the claim is the absence of probable cause. The Court found probable cause: the victim stated that she and Johnson had sexual relations, several other inmates gave statements corroborating the victim’s story, Johnson had no alibi, and the facility's records showed that Johnson had access to the victim on the date in question. The Court recognized certain disputes regarding the facts and also appreciated that the victim had, on one occasion, denied having sexual relations with Johnson. Nevertheless, it concluded that the undisputed facts created probable cause to believe that Johnson was guilty. With respect to Johnson's federal Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution claim, the Court agreed that Johnson forfeited the claim by not developing it in the district court. It rejected, on several grounds, Johnson's pleas to overlook the forfeiture.

• 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

NARDUCCI v. MOORE (July 9, 2009)

Many years ago, the Bellwood, Illinois comptroller became concerned that some finance department employees were making personal phone calls on village time and also were subjected to harassing phone calls from irate village residents. The village approved a proposal to begin recording department phone calls. Nicholas Narducci took over as controller several years later. When he learned about the recording, he advised village trustees that it was illegal, he alerted the FBI and he directed the Chief of Police to discontinue the activity. In 2001, he brought an action against the village, the mayor, and the police chief on behalf of a class of finance department employees whose calls were recorded. He brought a Fourth Amendment claim under § 1983 and an illegal wiretapping claim under Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as well as state law claims. The mayor and the police chief moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. The district court denied the motion with respect to the § 1983 claims and some of the Title III claims. The mayor and the police chief appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Williams and Lawrence affirmed. The issue on appeal, whether the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity, required the Court to examine whether there had been a violation of a constitutional right and, if so, whether it was "well-established." With respect to the Fourth Amendment violation, the Court looked to the totality of the circumstances. It first found, drawing all reasonable inferences in Narducci's favor, that he had demonstrated a reasonable expectation of privacy. The Court next concluded that Narducci presented enough evidence to survive summary judgment, given that the recording lasted more than six years with no notice to the employees. Although the Court realized that no Supreme Court or prior Seventh Circuit decision squarely addressed the issue, it concluded based on decisions of other circuits that the right was sufficiently clear to preclude qualified immunity. Lastly, the Court rejected the defendants' qualified immunity defense to the Title III claims. The Court concluded that the lower court did not err in holding that defendants waived the argument by not presenting it in their opening brief. 

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

STAINBACK v. DIXON (June 30, 2009)

Several police officers, after a report of his involvement in a minor disturbance, arrested Charles Stainback. They asked Stainback to put his hands behind his back. Instead of doing so, he asked that he not be handcuffed. All he said was that he thought it would hurt. The officers handcuffed him anyway. Stainback was handcuffed in a police vehicle for approximately 20 minutes. During that time, he complained that the handcuffs were hurting him and asked for them to be removed. Stainback alleges that he required medical treatment as a result of the episode. He sued the officers, alleging the use of excessive force. The lower court concluded that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because the amount of force was reasonable under the circumstances. The court granted summary judgment to the police officers. Stainback appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Ripple and Sykes affirmed. The Court stated that whether force is reasonable depends on the circumstances surrounding the arrest. The circumstances must be viewed as they would have been by a reasonable officer on the scene. Here, the officers used an amount of force that would not have harmed a typical arrestee. Given that the officers were not aware that Stainback suffered from any particular condition or injury, the Court concluded that their actions were reasonable.

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

GUZMAN v. CITY OF CHICAGO (May 13, 2009)

Sgt. Bonnstetter of the Chicago Police Department met with an ex-convict who wanted to share information regarding gang activity with the police. The informant provided valuable information and identified pictures of known gang members. He specifically advised Sergeant Bonnstetter that he was aware of the location of gang member Ruben Estrada. He told Bonnstetter that Estrada lived with his family in a single-family residence at an address on the west side of Chicago. He advised that he had seen Estrada at the residence with a handgun. He even drove by the house with an FBI agent and confirmed the location. Although there was a small sign in the front window, the agent assumed that it was a single family residence. Based on this information, Bonnstetter obtain an affidavit to search the premises and Estrada's person. When the officers arrived to execute the search warrant, they realized there was a separate door leading to a business and another door leading to a stairway to the second floor. At some point, it became clear that the building contained a first floor office, a first floor apartment, and a second floor apartment. The officers broke into the second-floor apartment and encountered Maira Guzman. With guns drawn, the officers searched the apartment -- but found nothing. Guzman brought a lawsuit against the City and several officers under 42 U.S.C § 1983, alleging that the search was unreasonable and a violation of her constitutional rights. The district court granted summary judgment to the City. Guzman appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Kanne, Rovner and Evans reversed and remanded. The Court identified the two different ways of evaluating an alleged violation of the Fourth Amendment. A court must look at both the issuance of a warrant and the execution of the warrant. Here, with respect to its issuance, the Court determined that there was sufficient indicia of reliability with respect to the informant to support probable cause. The informant provided information known to the police and identified a number of known gang members. With respect to the execution of the warrant, however, the Court disagreed with the district court. The Court specifically noted the "not uncommon" problems that arise with multiple living units. In executing the warrant in this case, the Court concluded that the officers were aware early in their search that the building was not a single-family residence, as expected and as described in the warrant. The proper course at that stage was to have called off the search. By continuing the execution of the warrant, the police violated Guzman's constitutional rights.

Judge Rovner wrote separately and concurred in the holding and reasoning. She did not join in that part of Judge Evans’ opinion in which, in dicta, he discussed Fourth Amendment rights in the context of civil actions as opposed to criminal suppression motions.

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

MARION v. THE CITY OF CORYDON (March 23, 2009)

Having been caught shoplifting, Trent Marion fled from police, scuffled with police, fled again, and led police on a high-speed chase down a divided highway. For miles, Marion eluded the police and their attempts to stop him. Even with three deflated tires, Marion refused to stop. Eventually, Marion swerved into the median and drove toward the other side of the highway. The police surrounded and fired shots at the vehicle. Marion continued to rev his engine and shift from forward to reverse. The police continued firing at the vehicle until Marion stopped. Marion suffered serious gunshot wounds. He filed suit under §1983, claiming that the police violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. Although Marion opposed the motion, he did not file an affidavit. He did submit an affidavit with a motion to reconsider. The court denied the motion. Marion appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Flaum, Williams and Kapala affirmed. The Court first concluded that it would not consider Marion's affidavit. The Court could consider it only if it consisted of newly discovered evidence, which it did not. On the merits of Marion's Fourth Amendment excessive force claim, the Court stated that it would apply an objective reasonableness standard and consider the totality of the circumstances. The Court concluded that it was reasonable for the police officers to believe that Marion posed a threat to their safety and the safety of nearby motorists while he was in the median. The amount of force they employed was therefore reasonable.

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

BIELANSKI v. COUNTY OF KANE (December 18, 2008)

Kane County set up a Child Advocacy Center (“Center”) to coordinate the investigation and prosecution of child sexual abuse. The Child Advocacy Advisory Board (“Board”) is responsible for drafting the policies and procedures for those investigations and prosecutions. Kathryn Berg and David Byrne were a child protection investigator and police officer, respectively, assigned to the Center. [The facts that follow, given the posture of the appeal from a motion to dismiss, are taken from the complaint.] In mid-2001, Berg and Byrne interviewed a six-year old boy and his parents. The boy claimed he had been sexually abused by “Lorri.” Berg and Byrne failed to follow accepted techniques used in child victim interviews. They did not use techniques to identify the perpetrator and did not even ask the boy to describe her. Within days, Lorri Bielanski, a fifteen-year-old neighbor of the boy, was notified that credible evidence existed that she had sexually assaulted the boy. Sometime shortly after Berg and Byrne’s interview of the boy, they learned that: a) he was taking medication for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, b) he was in special education classes, c) he was known, on two occasions, to have undressed with others and tried to get others to undress, d) his parents confronted him about the undressing incidents and punished him, and e) his parents suggested to him that he may have been sexually abused. Berg and Byrne did not disclose this information to the prosecutors or Bielanski. The county filed a Petition for Adjudication of Wardship, alleging the commission of two sexual assault felonies. As a result, Bielanski was forced to attend court hearings and an interview with a probation officer and was not allowed to travel out of the state without court permission. Bielanski was eventually acquitted of all charges and was successful in getting her record expunged. She filed a complaint against the County, the Center, the Board, Berg, and Byrne. Based on § 1983, she alleged: a) that the defendants violated her Fourth Amendment rights by compelling her to attend the court hearings and restricting her movement, and b) that Byrne and Berg violated her rights to a fair trial and due process by withholding the information they had about the boy. The district court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. Bielanski appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Kanne and Rovner affirmed. The Court began with Bielanski’s Fourth Amendment claim. In order to make out such a claim, the plaintiff must allege a seizure and that it was unreasonable. Since Bielanski was not seized in the normal sense of an arrest, the Court reviewed Justice Ginsburg’s “continuing seizure” concurrence in Albright and other circuits’ approaches in similar situations. In Albright, Justice Ginsburg supported a Fourth Amendment analysis whereby a defendant who was arrested, released, and then summoned back to court based on the misleading testimony of a police officer could state a claim for unlawful seizure. No other Justice has adopted the analysis. The Court concluded that a summons, even when combined with travel restrictions and a forced probation officer interview, is an insufficient restraint on freedom to constitute a seizure. The Court then addressed the fair trial claim. The elements of that claim are that: a) the evidence is favorable to the accused, b) that it was suppressed by the government, and c) that it was material. The Court noted that materiality was the only element in dispute and that the Supreme Court had not addressed a case in which evidence was withheld and the defendant was later acquitted. Several other circuits have concluded that a Brady claim cannot survive an acquittal or dismissal of charges. The Court concluded that Bielanski had no Brady claim since earlier disclosure of the evidence would not have resulted in a dismissal of the charges.

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