# Baker v. McCollan > Supreme Court of the United States · June 26, 1979 · 443 U.S. 137 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9427665 ## Case - **Full name:** BAKER v. McCOLLAN - **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States - **Decided:** June 26, 1979 - **Citations:** 443 U.S. 137; 99 S. Ct. 2689; 61 L. Ed. 2d 433; 1979 U.S. LEXIS 141 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Dissent by Marshall - **Judges:** Rehnquist, Burger, Stewart, White, Blackmun, Powell, Blacic-Mun, Marshall, Stevens, Brennan - **Cited by:** 5,606 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9427665 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - finding that violations of state laws or policies are not relevant to § 1983 analysis unless they involve “violations of ‘rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the [U.S.] Constitution and [federal] laws’ that occur under color of state law. The statue is thus limited to… - holding that the tort *1189 of false imprisonment does not become a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment simply because the defendant is a state official and that “Section 1983 imposes liability for violations of rights protected by the Constitution,… - stating that "[t]he Fourteenth Amendment does not protect against all deprivations of liberty" and noting that the distribution of duties in the criminal justice system does not require a sheriff holding a suspect in custody to "perform an error-free investigation," because ul… - holding that the tort of false imprisonment does not become a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment simply because the defendant is a state official and that "Section 1983 imposes liability for violations of rights protected by the Constitution, not f… - holding that a plaintiff, arrested pursuant to a valid warrant and who was incarcerated for eight days until police discovered he was innocent, could not state a § 1983 claim for want of a constitutional deprivation, and asserting law enforcement is not constitutionally requir… ## Opinion text Mr. Justice Marshall, dissenting. While I join the dissenting opinion of my Brother Stevens, I would add one or two additional words. As I view this case, neither "negligence” nor “mere negligence” is involved. Respondent was arrested and not released. This constituted intentional action and not, under these circumstances, negligence. For despite respondent’s repeated protests of misiden-tification, as well as information possessed by the Potter County sheriff suggesting that the name in the arrest warrant was incorrect, see post, at 151 (Stevens, J., dissenting), petitioner and his deputies made absolutely no effort for eight days to determine whether they were holding an innocent man in violation of his constitutionally protected rights. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9427665. Public record. Not legal advice.