4th Amendment Violation

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Elijah Manuel v. City of Joliet, Illinois, et al.

Case No.: 14-1581

Officials: WOOD, Chief Judge, and EASTERBROOK and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.

Focus: 4^th Amendment Violation

Elijah Manuel was arrested and charged with possessing unlawful drugs. A judge decided that he would be held in jail pending trial. Forty-seven days later the prosecutor dismissed all charges after concluding that the pills Manuel had been carrying were legal. The next day he was released. Last year the Supreme Court held that Manuel is entitled to seek damages on the ground that detention without probable cause violates the Fourth Amendment (applied to the states by the Fourteenth). Manuel v. Joliet, 137 S. Ct. 911 (2017). The Justices remanded the question whether Manuel sued in time. Id. at 920–22. The parties agree that Illinois law, which supplies the period of limitations under Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261 (1985), gave Manuel two years from the claim’s accrual. But federal law defines when a claim accrues. Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 388 (2007).

Here are the potentially important dates: March 18, 2011: Manuel is arrested; March 18, 2011: A judge orders Manuel to remain in custody for trial; May 4, 2011: The prosecutor dismisses the charge; May 5, 2011: Manuel is released; April 22, 2013: Manuel sues under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

Defendants contend that Manuel’s claim accrued on March 18, when the judge ordered him held pending trial. If that’s right, then Manuel sued too late. He maintains that the clock started on May 4, when his position was vindicated by dismissal of the prosecution. We do not accept either approach. We hold that Manuel’s claim accrued on May 5, when he was released from custody. That makes this suit timely. Defendants’ position relies on Wallace, which held that a Fourth Amendment claim accrues (and the period of limitations starts) as soon as the plaintiff has been brought before a judge (or, in the language of both Wallace and Manuel, has been held pursuant to legal process). 549 U.S. at 389–91. This position encounters two problems. The judgment of the district court is reversed, and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion and the Supreme Court’s.

Reversed and Remanded

Full Text

Attorney Derek A. Hawkins is the managing partner at Hawkins Law Offices LLC, where he heads up the firm’s startup law practice. He specializes in business formation, corporate governance, intellectual property protection, private equity and venture capital funding and mergers & acquisitions. Check out the website at www.hawkins-lawoffices.com or contact them at 262-737-8825.