|
|
Section 1983
Case Law Updates:
|
|
|
|
|
Greetings!
Here are the latest case law updates in the field of Civil Rights Litigation as they relate to allegations of police misconduct. We try to keep you informed on new decisions reached in this area of litigation. 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.
|
|
|
Judge Andersen rules that a Fifth Amendment Claim accrues at the first time the confession is used against the criminal defendant and not when the criminal case is terminated.
Lanza v. City Chicago (June 2, 2009)
Dany Lanza's case stems "from his arrest and subsequent prosecution for the molestation of two minor girls. Lanza claims that on November 26, 2001, he was visiting his aunt at her apartment complex and a woman approached him claiming that he resembled a man who molested her daughter months prior." The police were called and Lanza was arrested. Lanza claims he was "interrogated at length without receiving hisMiranda warnings, was held for longer than forty-eight hours without receiving a probable cause hearing, and was not fed or given the opportunity to see a family member during the interrogation. Further, Lanza alleges that when he requested a polygraph examination, he was brought to a separate area and the interrogation resumed....Lanza, a Spanish speaker, claims that eventually he was given a "form" written in English that, unbeknownst to him, was actually a fabricated confession. Lanza alleges that he was told that he would be able to go home if he signed it. The allegedly fabricated confession was then used against Lanza in hearings during his criminal case.
Based upon the allegations set forth above, Lanza asserts several claims against the defendants. Among his several federal claims, plaintiff alleged that his Fifth Amendment rights were violated by the defendants' procurement and use of his unwarned confession at pretrial hearings. The City defendants allege that Lanza's Fifth Amendment claim is barred by the two-year statute of limitations because the Supreme Court has held that a plaintiff's Section 1983 claim accrues at the moment the alleged constitutional violation occurs. Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 388 (2007); Chardon v. Fernandez, 454 U.S. 6, 8 (1981)(the accrual date is "not the point at which the consequences of the [violation] became painful)(emphasis added).
Lanza'a argued "that his Fifth Amendment claim is not barred by the two-year statute of limitations for two reasons: 1) the cause of action did not accrue until the charges were dropped in 2008, and 2) his claim falls within the "continuing violation" doctrine and therefore the cause of action did not accrue until the violation abated, i.e., when the charges were dropped.
The Court rejected both arguments:
"With respect to the first argument, Lanza argues that without discovery, he could not know how the coerced confession would be used against him until the charges were dropped.However, Lanza learned of the coerced confession at his 2001 probable cause hearing and moved to have is suppressed at a hearing in 2002. Therefore, Lanza had a complete cause of action in either 2001 or 2002 and knew or reasonably should have known of the use of the confession against him at that time. See Wallace, 549 U.S. at 388 (a cause of action generally accrues when the plaintiff has "a complete and present cause of action" and when he "can file suit and obtain relief"); see also Kelly v. City of Chicago, 4 F.3d 509, 511 (7th Cir. 1993)(section 1983 claim accrues when the plaintiff "knows or reasonably should know" that his constitutional rights have been violated); Hudson v. Cassidy, No. 05 C 5623, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88653, at *21, 2006 WL 3524420 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 5, 2006) (Schenkier, J.)(plaintiff was on notice of his coerced confession being used against him at a 2000 suppression hearing, making his 2005 Fifth Amendment claim untimely). Accordingly, Lanza's Fifth Amendment claim does not defeat the statute of limitations on this ground.
Lanza's second argument claims that, even if he should have known that his constitutional rights were violated at the time of the hearings, his Fifth Amendment claim is not time-barred under the "continuing violation" doctrine. Lanza relies on Heard v. Sheahan, 253
F.3d 316 (7 Cir. 2001), and essentially a th rgues that every day that the coerced confession was "used" to support the charges was a new injury and, therefore, it was unreasonable for him to bring suit until the charges were dropped. Heard, 253 F.3d at 319 (a prisoner's claim was
allowed to "reach back" to conduct outside the limitations period to the beginning of a violation when it would be unreasonable to require or permit him to sue separately over every violation).
However, Heard can be distinguished from Lanza's case for several reasons. First, Heard was a deliberate indifference claim under the Eighth Amendment and did not involve the Fifth Amendment. Id. Second, Heard's claim was based on repeated denial of medical attention
while in prison, which is different from the discrete use of an alleged coerced confession at issue in Lanza's case. See Savory v. Lyons, 469 F.3d 667, 672-73 (7th Cir. 2006) (a violation's lingering effects do not transform it into a continuing violation).
Judge Andersen also dimissed plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment Due Process claim based on the Supreme Court's holding in Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 273 (1994) (plurality opinion).
"In Albright, the Supreme Court held that "[w]here a particular Amendment 'provides an explicit textual source of constitutional protection' against a particular sort of governmental behavior, 'that Amendment, not the more generalized notion of 'substantive due process' must be the guide for analyzing these claims." Albright, 510 U.S. at 273 (quoting Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 (1989) (emphasis added); see also McCann v. Mangialardi, 337 F.3d 782, 787 (7 Cir. 2003) (holding that a plaintiff th could not recast his Fourth Amendment false arrest claim
as a substantive due process violation). Here Lanza is essentially repackaging his Fifth Amendment claim as a substantive due process violation."
|
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.
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
