Civil Rights — continuing seizure doctrine

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit

Civil

Civil Rights — continuing seizure doctrine

An initially lawful detention does not become unlawful because of its duration.

“Adoption of the “continuing seizure” doctrine in the form urged by the plaintiff would greatly enlarge the scope of the Fourth Amendment. And to no purpose, for there are abundant legal remedies — including federal remedies — for a state’s refusing to release a person who is being unlawfully detained. In Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 544, 557 (1974), for example, the Supreme Court held that to prolong detention by depriving a state prisoner of good-time credits without proper procedure violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. What it does not violate is the Fourth Amendment.”

Affirmed.

13-3351 Llovet v. City of Chicago

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Castillo, J., Posner, J.