{"id":9850,"date":"2013-12-17T06:43:54","date_gmt":"2013-11-23T10:24:45","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2013-11-23T10:24:45","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=9850","title":{"rendered":"CA7: Two hour police visit to sort out claim of elder abuse was \u201creasonable\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"

Plaintiff filed this 1983 action against local police for ordering her out of a house after spending two hours trying to figure out whether she was stealing a $10,000 check from the elderly occupant who was dying of Parkinson\u2019s. The interaction with the police was not a seizure and was reasonable. They had reason to believe she was attempting to commit fraud. Hamilton v. Village of Oak Lawn<\/a>, 735 F.3d 967 (7th Cir. 2013)* (read the opinion and see what else Judge Posner has to say about the plaintiff):<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Police often are summoned to a home because of a domestic altercation. And they may tell the quarreling couple not to leave while they try to ascertain the gravity of the quarrel. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court, 542 U.S. 177, 180-82, 124 S. Ct. 2451, 159 L. Ed. 2d 292 (2004); United States v. LaFrance, supra, 879 F.2d at 6-8. Detention in one’s residence or office\u2014in this case detention where one would be desperate to remain were there no police present\u2014should not be automatically equated to being jailed, or hauled off in a paddy wagon. Better to be questioned for a time in one’s home or other preferred location, and perhaps cleared of suspicion, than taken to the police station. Cf. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court, supra, 542 U.S. at 186. Hamilton was in her employer’s home; her friend Davy was nearby; she was not questioned at length; she was not handcuffed; the police displayed puzzlement rather than antagonism; the visit did not culminate in an arrest and damaging admissions, as in such cases as Orozco v. Texas, 394 U.S. 324, 326-27, 89 S. Ct. 1095, 22 L. Ed. 2d 311 (1969), and Sprosty v. Buchler, 79 F.3d 635, 642-43 (7th Cir. 1996), or lead to any criminal or civil proceeding against her. She seeks no damages for psychological distress, invasion of privacy, or damage to property\u2014the typical grounds for relief in a Fourth Amendment case. Her only articulated theory of injury is that the police prevented her from taking and cashing the $10,000 check and thwarted (we’re not sure how) her continued employment by Lorincz (for he still had a few months to live) and her receiving from him a power of attorney over his affairs. These are not damages of the kind sought in Fourth Amendment cases.<\/p>\n

Until the police arrived Hamilton was in the Lorincz home voluntarily, planning to remain indefinitely. She changed her mind only because she wanted to make off with her $10,000 check before the police decided to take it from her. The police had grounds for suspicion that she had obtained the money improperly. Apart from the grounds noted earlier, we point out that $10,000 for 88 hours of home care equals $113.64 an hour, which is a preposterous rate for an amateur “home helper.” And although Lorincz told the police that he wanted Hamilton to keep the check, sufferers from Parkinson’s disease typically experience severe cognitive impairments as the disease worsens, Joseph Jankovic, “Parkinson’s Disease: Clinical Features and Diagnosis,” 79 J. Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry 368, 372 (2008); J.L.W. Bosboom, D. Stoffers & E. Ch. Wolters, “Cognitive Dysfunction and Dementia in Parkinson’s Disease,” 111 J. Neural Transmission 1303, 1304-06 (2004)\u2014and Lorincz was near death. For the police not to have investigated conditions in the Lorincz residence, and instead let Hamilton walk off with the $10,000 check, would have been irresponsible. An interpretation of the Fourth Amendment that would require them to have behaved in such a way would be unreasonable. And reasonableness is the touchstone of the amendment. The police conduct had a custodial dimension but was not an arrest and was justified by the sliding-scale approach taken by this court in the Chaidez decision.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9850","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9850","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=9850"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9850\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=9850"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=9850"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=9850"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}