Police Officer May Be Liable For Failing to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence to Prosecutor


The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held a police officer can be liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims of false detention and illegal detention for failing to turn over exculpatory evidence to the prosecuting attorney. This action centers upon Lt. Curtis McCoy of the city of Mansfield, Louisiana Police Department. McCoy was in charge of an investigation of a suspect police dubbed the "bicycle bandit," who had assaulted and robbed several elderly people in Mansfield while on a bicycle. A victim and two witnesses assisted police in composing a sketch of the assailant, which was circulated in the local newspaper. Over several weeks time, McCoy received several phone calls from persons suggesting Floyd Sanders matched the description of the bicycle bandit.

McCoy was in court on an unrelated matter and noticed Sanders was there. Rather than arrange a formal line-up, McCoy had another officer have the victim that composed the sketch come to the courthouse. The victim identified Sanders by name. McCoy then obtained an arrest warrant. Before arresting Sanders, McCoy called a reporter at the local newspaper and told her to meet him in five ...

On July 20, 1994, a federal district court awarded a former Illinois state
prisoner $34,500 in compensatory and punitive damages for the extra time
he spent in prison after being granted parole.

Plaintiff Timothy Wilson claimed that on January 21, 1990, he was slated
for release on parole by the ...

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that jail officials failed to
present sufficient evidence to allow the question of qualified immunity to
be submitted to the jury. This action was filed by a former prisoner of
the Dallas County Jail alleging Eighth Amendment violations for detaining
him beyond the expiration of his sentence. The plaintiff served 90 days on
a misdemeanor charge and was ordered to pay $126.00 in costs, which was to
be paid after release. Approximately 7 months later, the plaintiff was
charged with another misdemeanor and ordered to serve 30 days. When that
sentence expired, jail officials held the plaintiff for another 30 days.
After the prisoner filed suit the matter went to a jury trial with the
defendants claiming they were entitled to qualified immunity because they
were holding the plaintiff to satisfy the cost award at the statutory rate
of $5 per day. The jury granted qualified immunity and the district court
entered judgment accordingly.

The Fifth Circuit held that detention of a prisoner 30 days beyond the
expiration of his sentence in the absence of a facially valid court order
or warrant violates due process. In looking at qualified immunity, the
court said ...

The Supreme Court of California held that the application of a good-time
statute enacted on January 1, 1983 to prisoners convicted before that time
and under a different good-time statute did not violate the state or
federal ex post facto clauses. State prisoner Rudy Ramirez, convicted and
imprisoned prior to January 1, 1983, was found guilty of violating a
prison rule in January 1983. Officials confiscated 95 days good-time under
the new statute; under the old statute good-time forfeiture would have
been limited to 15 days for the offense. Ramirez sought a writ of habeas
corpus challenging the good-time forfeiture. The writ was denied by a
superior court, affirmed by the Court of Appeal, and remanded by the
Supreme Court. The writ was again denied by the Court of Appeal, 200
Cal.Rptr. 11.

Upon granting a petition to resolve conflicting decisions, the California
Supreme Court denied the habeas writ. The Court reasoned that for a law to
violate ex post facto it must be "retrospective" and that a law is
retrospective when it applies to events occurring before its enactment.
Thus, the Court held, even though Ramirez was imprisoned before the
statute's enactment in 1983, "the increased sanctions [were] imposed ...

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (TCCA) has held that newly discovered,
unquestionable evidence of a prisoner's actual innocence may be raised on
state habeas corpus even though the prisoner pleaded guilty.
Wesley Ronald Tuley, a Texas state prisoner, filed a petition for a writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal
Procedure (TCCP). Tuley claimed that since his conviction for sexually
assaulting the daughter of his former girlfriend, he had discovered that
the daughter had repeatedly and consistently recanted her testimony since
before the original trial. This allegation was supported by affidavits
from the daughter, her best friend at the time of the trial, and her
boyfriend at the time of the trial. Complicating the case was the fact
that Tuley had accepted a plea bargain offer of ten years community
service after a jury deadlocked (10-2 in favor of acquittal) following a
trial. The daughter, who confessed multiple times privately that she had
made up the story of the sexual assaults, publicly confessed after Tuley
was sent to prison for ten years following the revocation of his probation.
Under Texas state law, post-conviction habeas corpus petitions are filed
in the convicting court. ...

Washington Prisoners Challenge Confinement Beyond EERD; Class Action
Certification Granted; Defendants Get Qualified Immunity


On December 22, 2004, four former prisoners of the Washington
Department Of Corrections (WDOC) brought suit in federal court,
challenging the constitutionality of WDOC's practice of confining
prisoners beyond their earned early release dates" (EERD), without a
hearing. On April 4, 2005, the district court certified the action as a
class action.

The Washington State Legislature enacted legislation establishing
a program" allowing prisoners to 'earn early release credits' (EERC's)
based upon their good behavior and participation in various correctional
programs such as work, chemical dependency programs, and education."
Depending upon the offense, a prisoner's confinement may be reduced
through EERCs by 15%, 33%, or 50%. Except for a portion of a sentence
that, by law, specifically disallows EERCs (such as a gun or weapon in
half the portion of a sentence), as long as [the prisoner] follows the
rules and regulations all the [WDOC], [he or she] earns EERCs.

WDOC prisoner release dates are initially calculated by
determining the fixed days of incarceration imposed by the sentencing
court." The EERCs are deducted from the statutory maximum imposed by the
sentencing court and this becomes the 'earned ...

Failure to Ascertain Arrestee's Identity Creates Liability for False
Imprisonment


The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that a Macon County, Alabama
Sheriff's deputy who failed to make an attempt to obtain information from
an arrestee for purposes of filing an arrest report was liable for false
imprisonment. The plaintiff ...

On December 3, 2002, a man jailed after being mistakenly identified by a
bond agent was awarded $5,172 in damages by a superior court in Fulton
County, Georgia.

Plaintiff Charles Leeks was arrested at his place of employment by an
agent of Always Bonding, a bail bond company, in connection ...

A Georgia federal district court has found that the defendants in a 42
U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging claims of (1) bad faith prosecution; (2)
arrest without probable cause; (3) deprivation of liberty without due
process; (4) unlawful search and seizure of property; and (5) conspiracy
to commit the foregoing are entitled to qualified immunity. This action
was filed by the Sheriff of Camden County, Georgia, who was arrested
pursuant to an indictment that was later nol prossed.

The sheriff was investigated and had his home searched on allegations that
he was using prisoner labor to work on personal projects and for failure
to execute bond forfeitures on criminal defendants, both of which are
felony offenses under Georgia law. After evidence and testimony was
obtained to support the allegations, the sheriff was arrested. Once the
charges were dismissed he filed this action, and the defendants moved for
summary judgment.

The court held the defendants were entitled to absolute immunity for their
actions in presenting Grand Jury testimony and obtaining a search warrant.
As for the unlawful search and seizure claim, the court said the
defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity if a reasonable officer
could have believed that probable ...

Washington Prisoner Awarded $125 for Failure to Timely Respond to Public
Records Request


A Thurston County, Superior Court in Washington State awarded
Airway Heights Correction Center prisoner Derek E. Grunquist $125 for a
114 business day delay in responding to his public records request. On
June 22, 1998, the Washington Department of Corrections (WDOC) received a
public records request from Grunquist requesting that he be provided the
number of prisoners within the WDOC who had their sentences adjusted
pursuant to the decision of In re: Mahrle, 88 Wash.App. 410, 945 P.2d 1142
(1997). Grunquist did not receive a response until October 27, 1998. On
October 29 he sent a letter clarifying his request because WDOC responded
he should direct his request elsewhere. After his suit was filed, WSOC
responded to Grunquist's request by stating six prisoners had been
affected by Mahrle as of April 1998.

Both parties moved for summary judgment in Grunquist's public
records suit. The Judge, Richard J. Strophy, granted judgment for WDOC on
the records claim, finding the information" Grunquist sought, without
more specifity, does not constitute an adequate request under the Public
Disclosure Act. The Court, however, ruled in favor of Grunquist on the
failure to ...