finding that detention of forty-two hours violated arrestee’s Fourth Amendment rights, where officers learned early in the detention that arrestee would not be charged and the only reason for delay was that police were trying to build a ease against arrestee, and reversing jury verdict in favor of defendants and directing verdict in arrestee’s favor
How later courts described this case
- finding that detention of forty-two hours violated arrestee’s Fourth Amendment rights, where officers learned early in the detention that arrestee would not be charged and the only reason for delay was that police were trying to build a ease against arrestee, and reversing jury verdict in favor of defendants and directing verdict in arrestee’s favor
- observing “that civil rights actions often pit unsympathetic plaintiffs—criminals, or members of the criminal class ... —against the guardians of the community’s safety, yet serve an essential deterrent function”
- finding probable cause a jury question when difference of opinion exists
- noting that sealing off the house would have been difficult in part because it was nighttime
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Abrogated on other grounds by County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991)
763 F.2d 1560, 1565 (7th Cir. 1985), abrogated on other grounds by Cty. of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44
The opinion
CUDAHY, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
Although Judge Posner has graphically described the very real dilemma facing the police and the hard choices which they confront under these dangerous and extraordinary circumstances, the considerations cited by Judge Wood must ultimately be controlling for me. There are extremely compelling reasons for leaving a case like this one to a jury verdict but the even more fundamental reasons advanced by Judge Wood for not doing so must in the end prevail. I therefore concur fully in Judge Wood’s opinion.