When does arrest end and pre-arraignment detention begin?

The S.D. Ala. had to deal with an interesting question: When does arrest end and pre-arraignment detention begin? It matters in an excessive force case because during arrest the Fourth Amendment applies and in pre-arraignment situations the Fourteenth Amendment applies. Here, the defendant was in the police station and in the booking process when he was Tasered, so the court determined that the Fourth Amendment applied because arrest was not complete. (The court cites dozens of cases, just a few are here.) Stephens v. City of Butler, 509 F. Supp. 2d 1098 (S.D. Ala. 2007):

The Fourth Circuit has rejected the “continuing seizure” theory. See Riley v. Dorton, 115 F.3d 1159, 1164 (4th Cir. 1997). The Seventh Circuit has rejected the extension of Fourth Amendment protection into the “gap” between the initial arrest and charge–at least once the person has been arrested and “placed securely in custody.” Wilkins v. May, 872 F.2d 190, 192-93 (7th Cir. 1989) (Fourteenth Amendment applied to claim for threats during interrogation).

The authority in this Circuit establishes no clear cut-off point beyond which the Fourth Amendment ceases to apply. In Redd v. Conway, 160 Fed.Appx. 858, 861 (11th Cir. 2006), a panel of the Court of Appeals analyzed a claim that officers used excessive force during booking under the Fourteenth Amendment standard, without discussion of the potential for use of the Fourth Amendment standard. In Cotrell v. Caldwell, 85 F.3d 1480 (11th Cir. 1996) a different panel reversed the trial court’s application of the Fourteenth Amendment to an excessive force claim in which the arrestee died during transportation to the jail. And in Vinyard v. Wilson, 311 F.3d 1340, 1347 (11th Cir. 2002), another panel analyzed the plaintiff’s excessive force claim under the Fourth Amendment where the allegedly excessive force was applied during the ride to the jail but declined to decide whether the Fourth Amendment applied to a pretrial detainee.

(Comment: If the law could just be the same for these issues, this court would not have to engage in its metaphysical discussion of when an arrest, which can extend well into the time in the police station, transforms into post-arrest detention. It is interesting, but it is something only a Fourth Amendment geek would really like, and it only matters in an excessive force civil case. I’m apparently not.)

The investigation started with an anonymous tip, but, over five days, the officer was able to corroborate enough of the informant’s story to give reasonable suspicion for a stop. United States v. Pearsall, 492 F. Supp. 2d 432 (D. Del. 2007).*

Search issue raised in the trial court and abandoned for appeal was fairly litigated and barred under Stone v. Powell. Westfall v. Parker, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45787 (E.D. Okla. June 22, 2007).*

Plaintiff who claimed that she was arrested at school for drug use for her father’s drugs and the case was “contrived” by the police stated a claim for relief. Allen v. Fresno City, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45827 (E.D. Cal. June 13, 2007).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.