Holding Prisoner 57 Days Without Judicial Appearance Unconstitutional
At 569: "... [T]his case plays out on the yielding natural grass of substantive due process rather than the stiff astroturf of specific constitutional rights." The Fourth Amendment usually governs up to a judicial determination of probable cause, but the plaintiff was arrested on a bench warrant so that determination had already been made. The Eighth Amendment does not apply to the unconvicted. The plaintiff's prolonged detention over his protests without a court appearance violated his substantive due process rights. The "shocks the conscience" test applies, but it can be met by a showing of deliberate indifference. Outside the Eighth Amendment context, the standard for deliberate indifference is closer to tort recklessness: "conscious disregard of known or obvious dangers ... even though the defendant obtusely lacks actual knowledge of the danger." (577) The defendants' conduct in maintaining a deficient "will call" policy combined with their refusal of written complaints meets the deliberate indifference threshold and independently shocks the conscience (which the court makes a separate inquiry). See: Armstrong v. Squadrito, 152 F.3d 564 (7th Cir. 1998).
Related legal case
Armstrong v. Squadrito
Year | 1998 |
---|---|
Cite | 152 F.3d 564 (7th Cir. 1998) |
Level | Court of Appeals |
Injunction Status | N/A |