Confession Case Analysis

Listen to this article

Sornberger v. City of Knoxville, Illinois, No. 04-3614

The decision is noteworthy for a number of reasons.

First, the discussion of whether there was probable cause for Scott Sornberger’s arrest, and whether the officers are entitled to qualified immunity, suggests a good avenue for plaintiffs’ attorneys to pursue in similar cases — the opinions of the local federal authorities.

In this case, the local FBI and U.S. Attorney refused to seek a warrant for Scott’s arrest, given the weakness of the evidence against him.

Bank robbery, like firearms and controlled substance offenses (and increasingly even more crimes), can be charged in either federal or state court. Demonstrating that federal authorities considered and declined prosecution can be a valuable means of showing that the state actors who did pursue the case did not act in good faith.

Second, although the court’s discussion of collateral estoppel applies Illinois state law (Wisconsin has abandoned the term, “collateral estoppel,” in favor of “issue preclusion”), the court’s reasoning would be equally applicable had this prosecution occurred in Wisconsin.

One of the elements of issue preclusion in Wisconsin is that there be a valid and final judgment. The denial of a suppression motion, however, does not result in a judgment. Furthermore, equitable considerations would surely bar application of the doctrine, just as in Sornberger’s case.

	Related Links 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Related Article Court rules on coerced confession suit

Third, parties need to be aware that, although the court held that Teresa Sornberger’s Section 1983 action could proceed, despite the fact that Teresa was never tried for the charge, the court has created a split within the circuits, and counsel for defense should preserve objections for potential Supreme Court review.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 (2003), only holds that, where the plaintiff was never charged with a crime at all, he cannot bring a Section 1983 action based on a coerced confession.

In the Third Circuit, however, the law is that an alleged Miranda violation is not actionable under Section 1983 unless the suspect’s statements are introduced at trial.

Guiffre v. Bissell, 31 F.3d 1241 (3d Cir. 1994); Renda v. King, 347 F.3d 550 (3d Cir. 2003).

So, although Miranda violations can support Section 1983 claims in the Seventh Circuit, even if the statement is not introduced at trial, that holding could ultimately be reversed, and city attorneys should preserve the objection, just in case.

– David Ziemer

Click here for Main Story.

David Ziemer can be reached by email.