Similar cases, unique results

Listen to this article

On the face of it, the cases of Jeffery A. Lawson and William O. Atkins are similar. Both spent more than a month in jail because of mistaken identity.

But in opinions released only days apart, the 7^th Circuit held that only one will get a trial on his civil rights claim that he was wrongfully detained.

Atkins

William O. Atkins was arrested in Chicago on a parole-violation warrant and was not released until 37 days later, when the parole board acknowledged he was not on parole and had been held in error.

He brought suit alleging that there was no probable cause for his arrest, and that his detention was unjustifiably protracted.

The district court dismissed the claim, and the 7th Circuit affirmed on Jan. 25, in an opinion by Judge Richard Posner and joined by Judge Daniel Manion.

The court concluded that the initial arrest was not unlawful, and that even if his lengthy detention was unlawful, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from civil suit.

Although persons arrested for crimes are entitled to a probable cause hearing within 48 hours, pursuant to County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991), those arrested for parole violations are only entitled to a hearing with a “reasonable time.”

The court recognized that someone who is not on parole, and is not the person named in the arrest warrant, but who is nevertheless arrested for a parole violation, could argue that he should have the same rights as those guaranteed in Riverside.

But the court concluded, “The question is novel, and the defendants [are] therefore protected from liability for damages for possibly answering incorrectly by the doctrine of qualified immunity.”

Judge David Hamilton wrote a concurring opinion, agreeing that the novelty of the legal question entitled the defendants to qualified immunity.

But Hamilton wrote separately to argue that due process should require that persons arrested on parole warrants be given a hearing within 48 hours.

Hamilton acknowledged, “The reason we tolerate the slower and different procedures for parolees is precisely because they are parolees.” But he added, “That reasoning simply does not extend to the issue of what processes are necessary to determine whether an arrested person is actually on parole.”

Therefore, Hamilton concluded, “due process of law requires greater procedural protection to guard against cases of mistaken identity in the context of parole-violation warrants.”

Hamilton noted that federal rules already require this for persons arrested on warrants for violation of supervised release or probation.

“Unless and until this view of the merits is accepted,” Hamilton warned, “law-abiding citizens who are not on parole remain vulnerable to lengthy deprivations of liberty without due process of law and without effective remedy.”

Lawson

In contrast, Jeffery A. Lawson will get a trial as a result of his 34-day wrongful detention.

Jeffrey W. Lawson assaulted Kimberly Colvin by slamming her car door on her head, requiring 40 to 50 stitches.

But instead of arresting Jeffrey W. Lawson, City of Rockford Detective Robert Veruchi arrested Jeffery A. Lawson. After he was finally released from jail, Jeffery A. Lawson sued Veruchi and the City of Rockford.

Veruchi claimed that Colvin and another witness both selected Jeffery A. Lawson’s photograph from a photo array. But Colvin and the witness testified at depositions that they did not.

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, but on Jan. 28, the 7^th Circuit reversed in an opinion by Judge Manion.

The court concluded that, based on the witness’ deposition testimony, a jury could conclude that Veruchi knowingly made false statements in the affidavit in support of the arrest warrant.

Judge Manion wrote, “While there was probable cause to believe that a man named ‘Jeffrey’ (spelling unknown) Lawson had attacked Colvin, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Jeffery A., there is absolutely no evidence that he was the ‘Jeffrey’ Lawson who had attacked Colvin.”

The district court found Jeffery A.’s theory of the case incredible, but the court suggested that it was actually Veruchi’s theory that was incredible.

“Jeffery A. also counters that Colvin’s version of the events is much more likely than Veruchi’s because Veruchi’s version of the events would mean that two witnesses identified an innocent man — someone who even Veruchi admits does not look like Jeffrey W. — who amazingly had the same first and last name as the alleged attacker.”

Without expressly finding that theory implausible, the court held it was for the jury to decide who was credible, and reversed and remanded the case for trial.

The cases are Atkins v. City of Chicago, No. 09-2998 & Lawson v. Veruchi, No. 10-1318.

David Ziemer can be reached at [email protected]