25. Intake and admissions.

U.S. Appeals Court

PROCEDURES

Golberg v. Hennepin County, 417 F.3d 808 (8th Cir. 2005). A detainee brought a civil rights action against a sheriff and county, alleging that she was subjected to an excessive delay in releasing her from custody. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants and the detainee appealed. The appeals court affirmed. The detainee had appeared in court in response to a felony fraud charge. The court continued the proceeding but ordered the detainee to be booked at the detention center before her release. When detention center officials discovered that the detainee had two outstanding warrants they required her to post bail before she could be released. As a result, she remained in custody for 32 hours, including ten hours after her father posted the required bail. The court noted that the detainee conceded that the officials had probable cause to detain her after the outstanding warrants were discovered. The appeals court held that the Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process analysis applied to the constitutionality of the delayed release, and that the failure to process the detainee more rapidly did not rise to the level of deliberate indifference. The court found that a sign advising detainees that completing their paperwork might take "more than eight hours" did not show reckless disregard. The court held that the county could not be liable under [section] 1983 for adopting administrative procedures that allegedly slowed the bail posting and release process, absent a showing that the procedures violated federal law on their face or were intended to deprive detainees of their constitutional rights. (Hennepin County Adult Detention Center, Minnesota)

U.S. Appeals Court

PROCEDURES LENGTH

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 favor of the defendants and the arrestee appealed. The appeals court affirmed, finding that the arrestee's due process rights were not violated by his twenty-four hour detention following his arrest for an outstanding bench warrant, since the length of the detention did not shock the conscience and the arrestee did not complain of any mistreatment by jail staff. The arrestee had failed to pay fines for two traffic citations and bench warrants had been issued. His license had...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT