good faith standard “contains both a subjective element of good faith and an objective element of reasonableness”
How later courts described this case
- good faith standard “contains both a subjective element of good faith and an objective element of reasonableness”
- noting that subsequent decisions “cast considerable doubt on the wisdom or continued vitality of [Whirl].”
- “[W]e surveyed the law of false imprisonment and concluded that intent to imprison without legal authority need not be proved as an element of the prima facie case. . . . [A] prima facie case [for false imprisonment] is made out against a jailer even when he believes he has legal authority to detain a prisoner. Accordingly, whatever impact his good faith has, it must be as an element of a defense.”
- “Thus, a prima facie case is made out against a jailer even when he believes he has legal authority to detain a prisoner. Accordingly, whatever impact his good faith has, it must be as an element of a defense”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
GEE, Circuit Judge
specially concurring:
We here hold that good faith is a defense to § 1983/false imprisonment actions. Whirl v. Kern 1 holds that it is not. 2
I concur generally in the majority opinion, as far as it goes. 3 With deference, I suggest that it should go on and overrule Whirl v. Kern rather than leave it, like Marley’s Ghost, to materialize from time to time on awkward occasions — present in form but eviscerated.
. 407 F.2d 781 (5th Cir. 1968).
. As the panel opinion herein recognizes when it refers, for example, to “the Whirl v. Kern decision that good faith is not a defense to a § 1983 action for false imprisonment,” and again,, to “Whirl’s refusal to recognize the good faith defense to a charge of false imprisonment.” 519 F.2d at 45.
. Though I would prefer to await the case of imprisonment caused by the error of a negligently-established record keeping system before deciding it, as the opinion’s penultimate paragraph seems to do.