|
|
Section 1983
Case Law Updates:
|
|
|
|
|
Greetings!
Here are the latest legal updates in the field of Civil Rights Litigation as they relate to allegations of police misconduct. You can now sign up for Case Law Updates on our website. You can also access prior case law updates on our site or our blog. If you have any decisions you would like to circulate on our updates, please contact me. As always, you can contact me if you have any questions or comments.
|
|
|
Prosecutor
Denied Absolute Immunity Based On Allegation that ASA Was Performing An
Investigative Function During Police Investigation. Prosecutor Was,
However, Entitled To Qualified Immunity.
Campos v. City of Chicago, 2009 WL 1106975 (April 20, 2009 N.D.Ill.) (Moran, J)
Judge Moran explained:
"The Chicago Police arrested plaintiff on or about May 23, 2006 in connection with a shooting that took place on that
day. [Plaintiff alleges that a statement taken by the ASA ] led to his being charged and incarcerated in the Cook County Jail . The criminal proceedings were terminated in September 2007, when plaintiff was found not guilty."
The Assistant State Attorney argued "that she is entitled to absolute immunity because all of her actions in plaintiff's case were prosecutorial functions. Plaintiff contends that since the acts for which he is seeking to hold defendant liable did not involve the exercise of prosecutorial discretion or her functions as an advocate, defendant is not entitled to absolute immunity. We agree with plaintiff that defendant is not entitled to absolute immunity, but we find that her alleged fabrication of the Pouncy statement is protected by qualified immunity.
In denying the ASA's absolute immunity defense Judge Moran explained:
"In determining whether absolute immunity protects the particular functions of a government official, the United States Supreme Court has embraced the "functional approach," which looks into the nature of the function performed, rather than the identity of the official. Buckley, 509 U.S. at 269. Thus when a prosecutor performs investigative functions normally performed by a detective or police officer, she is only entitled to the immunity that those officials would receive for those functions, which is qualified immunity. "When the functions of prosecutors and detectives are the same ... the immunity that protects them is also the same." Id. at 276. In addition, a prosecutor is not considered to be an advocate, or carrying out prosecutorial functions, before she has probable cause to arrest a suspect. Id. at 274."
As such, given allegations that ASA "fabricated Pouncy's statement to create probable cause by falsely implicating him in the shooting. Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that defendant was performing an investigative function because the fabrication of the statement took place during the initial investigation of the shooting, before probable cause to charge and detain plaintiff had been established."
But plaintiff could not get passed qualified immunity. Judge Moran explained: "[T]he Seventh Circuit noted that "the mere preparation of false evidence, as opposed to its use in a fashion that deprives someone of a fair trial or otherwise harms him, [does not] violate[ ] the Constitution." 20 F.3d at 797, quoting Buckley, 509 U.S. at 281 (Scalia, J., concurring). Because the coerced witnesses suffered the harm, Buckley could not recover because "[r]ights personal to their holders may not be enforced by third parties." Id. at 795.
......
Moreover, the false statement at issue was not from plaintiff himself, but from Pouncy. Therefore, if there was any coercion involved in getting Pouncy to sign the statement (and the complaint contains no facts suggesting this was the case), then Pouncy, not plaintiff, suffered a genuine constitutional wrong. Buckley, 20 F.3d at 794-795. Plaintiff cannot enforce Pouncy's rights as a third party. Since the fabricated statement does not, on its own, violate plaintiff's constitutional rights, id. at 797, and defendant had no power to detain plaintiff, Anderson, 217 F.3d at 476, the complaint fails to state a claim under Section 1983. Because plaintiff has not alleged a constitutional violation, we need not proceed to the second step of the Saucier inquiry. Pearson, 129 S.Ct. at 816; Akande, 555 F.3d at 590.
|
Seventh Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Time-Barred Section 1983 Claims.
Terence Brooks v. City of Chicago (May 1, 2009)
Today the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of time-barred Section 1983 False Arrest and Due Process Claims.
On False Arrest, The Court explained:
"Brooks concedes that any claim based on the 2004 arrest
alone is untimely. In an attempt to avoid a statute of
limitations problem, Brooks does not argue simply that the
2004 arrest was unlawful. Rather, he argues that in
May 2004 the named defendants "caused" an unlawful
arrest that occurred in May 2007. According to Brooks, the
evidence seized from Brooks at the time of his May 2004
arrest became the basis for the indictment; in turn, Brooks
was ordered to appear in court; his failure to appear led
to the 2004 warrant; and the warrant ultimately led to the
2007 arrest. Brooks's theory seems to be that the fruits of
the defendant officers' allegedly illegal seizure in 2004 provided the evidentiary basis for the indictment, which
led to his 2007 arrest.
Assuming Brooks had a cause of action against the
defendant officers after the alleged wrongful arrest in
2004, such claim accrued at that time. Later proceedings
are irrelevant to accrual of a false arrest claim because "the
plaintiff can plead all the elements on the day of the
arrest regardless of later proceedings." Sneed v. Rybicki, 146
F.3d 478, 481 (7th Cir. 1998). Brooks's 2007 arrest and
confinement cannot revive any claim based on the 2004
arrest."
The Seventh Circuit also rejected Brooks' Due Process claims, as follows:
Plaintiff "alleged that the defendant officers deprived him "of fair criminal proceedings" by acts including "not disclosing
known exculpatory evidence, perjuring themselves,
submitting false charges as contained in the criminal
complaints, submitting false police reports, and otherwise
acting to deny plaintiff a fair trial."
The Court explained: "A plaintiff cannot state a due
process claim "by combining what are essentially claims
for false arrest under the Fourth Amendment and state
law malicious prosecution into a sort of hybrid substan-
tive due process claim under the Fourteenth Amend-
ment." McCann v. Mangialardi, 337 F.3d 782, 786 (7th Cir.
2003). Here, Brooks' complaints about the conduct of the
defendant officers leading to his 2004 arrest are merely
improper attempts to recast his untimely unlawful arrest
claim as a due process claim. As for Brooks's allegations
that criminal proceedings were instituted against him
based on false evidence or testimony, such a claim "is, in
essence, one for malicious prosecution, rather than a
due process violation." Id.
|
About Our Firm
Andrew M. Hale & Associates is a firm which specializes in the defense of civil rights lawsuits brought against municipalities and its police officers. The firm's principal attorneys, Andrew M. Hale and Avi T. Kamionski, have significant experience in defending cities, municipalities, police officers and other governmental employees in civil rights lawsuits. Mr. Hale and Mr. Kamionski have tried numerous civil rights cases before juries in the Northern District of Illinois and are seasoned trial attorneys. Contact Andy or Avi to discuss any of your legal needs.
|
|
|
|
The information you obtain in these case law updates is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation. We invite you to contact us and welcome your calls, letters and electronic mail. Contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not send any confidential information to us until such time as an attorney-client relationship has been established.
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
