Term: 2006
Docket: 05-1240
Andre Wallace v. Kristen Kato Et Al.
- Pro
05-1240 WALLACE V. CHICAGO POLICE OFFICERS DECISION BELOW:440 F3d 421 LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: WHEN DOES A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF A FALSE ARREST OR OTHER SEARCH OR SEIZURE FORBIDDEN BY THE FOURTH AMENDMENT ACCRUE WHEN THE FRUITS OF THE SEARCH WERE INTRODUCED IN THE CLAIMANT'S CRIMINAL TRIAL AND HE WAS CONVICTED? CERT. GRANTED 6/19/2006 QUESTIONS PRESENTED: 1. As framed by Judge Posner in his opinion dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc in this case, The panel decision creates an intercircuit conflict on a recurrent issue: when does a claim for damages arising out of a false arrest or other search or seizure forbidden by the Fourth Amendment, or a coerced confession forbidden by the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, accrue, when the fruits of the search or the confession were introduced in the claimant's criminal trial, and he was convicted? 2. When an arrest without probable cause results in eight years of incarceration before charges are dismissed after a final adjudication that a confession of dubious reliability was secured by exploiting the unlawful arrest and, as the tainted fruit of that arrest, is inadmissible under Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975): May damages be recovered in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for the unlawful seizure that began at the time of arrest and continued to the time that charges were dismissed, or are damages limited to compensation for the brief period of time that elapsed from arrest to arraignment? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 04-3949
In the case of Andre Wallace v. Kristen Kato et al., 2006, Andre Wallace argued that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated when police officers entered his home without a warrant and arrested him for murder. The officers had been given permission to enter by Wallace's mother, but he contended that she did not have the authority to consent as he was an adult and paid rent. The District Court initially ruled in favor of the police officers, granting them qualified immunity because they reasonably believed they had consent from someone with apparent authority over the premises. However, on appeal, this decision was reversed by Seventh Circuit Court which held that no reasonable officer could have thought it lawful to enter under such circumstances where there is a tenant who pays rent separately from others living in same house. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and unanimously reversed again; holding that even if Mr. Wallace’s constitutional rights were violated (which wasn't decided), at time of arrest law enforcement didn’t clearly establish whether landlord or co-tenant can give valid consent for search when suspect has previously objected – thus giving them qualified immunity.
The dissenting opinion in the case of Andre Wallace v. Kristen Kato et al., 2006, argued that the majority's decision to apply a two-year statute of limitations from the time when wrongful conduct occurs was incorrect. The dissent believed that this approach failed to consider situations where victims are unable to recognize their rights have been violated within such a short timeframe due to factors beyond their control, such as being incarcerated or not having access to legal counsel. They contended that it would be more appropriate for the clock on filing civil rights claims under Section 1983 should start ticking once plaintiffs know or have reason to know about their injury and who caused it. This perspective emphasized fairness and justice for potential claimants who might otherwise lose out on pursuing legitimate claims because they were unaware of them within an arbitrarily set period.
