16. False imprisonment/arrest.

U.S. District Court

FALSE IMPRISONMENT

DeToledo v. County of Suffolk, 379 F.Supp.2d 138 (D.Mass. 2005). A jail visitor who was arrested and briefly detained on an arrest warrant that was intended for another person, and a visitor who was arrested and strip searched on a warrant for her arrest that had been recalled, brought an action against correctional officers, a jail supervisor and the county. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants in part, and denied it in part. The court held that the supervisor's negligent conduct in mistakenly ordering the arrest of the wrong person did not rise to the level of a due process violation that would support a claim under [section] 1983, where the supervisor made a reasonable assumption as to the warrant target's location in the visiting area and immediately rescinded the arrest when he was alerted to his mistake by another officer. The court found that a fact issue precluded summary judgment in favor of the supervisor for arresting the second visitor, noting that the supervisor had in his hands documents which, if read, would have revealed that the arrest warrant had been recalled. The court granted summary judgment to low-ranking correctional officers who conducted a strip search on the second visitor under then-existing policies that called for strip searches of prisoners. According to the court, reasonable officers in their positions would not have known that then-actions would violate the Fourth Amendment. (South Bay House of Corrections, Suffolk County, Massachusetts)

U.S. Appeals Court

UNLAWFUL DETENTION

Holmes v. Crosby, 418 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 2005). A parolee who had successfully defended parole violation charges brought a [section] 1983 action against a parole officer and individual parole board members, alleging false imprisonment and violation of his due process rights. The district court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment and they appealed. The appeals court reversed and remanded. The court held that the defendants were entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity from liability because they were acting within the scope of their duties. (Georgia Board of Pardon and Paroles)

U.S. Appeals Court

FALSE IMPRISONMENT

Luckes v. County of Hennepin, 415 F.3d 936 (8th Cir. 2005). An arrestee brought a [section] 1983 action against a county and a sheriff related to his 24-hour detention after his arrest. The district court granted summary judgment in...