Manuel v. City of Joliet Page 7

Manuel v. City of Joliet general information

Media for Manuel v. City of Joliet

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - October 05, 2016 in Manuel v. City of Joliet

John G. Roberts, Jr.:

 You have more? ahead.

Michael A. Scodro:

 Thank you. (Laughter.)

 Thank you. So I want to return to the point I was making, which now -- I apologize.  I don't know if I've answered Your Honor's --

John G. Roberts, Jr.:

 You were about that the --

Michael A. Scodro:

 Yes.

John G. Roberts, Jr.:

 -- Gerstein is often combined --

Michael A. Scodro:

 Yeah.  It's often the first appearance.  And the reason -- actually, this Court has contemplated that in Rothberry and Gerstein itself.  It's often a matter of convenience that at that point, it's when the individual's informed of the charges, their Sixth Amendment right attaches and bail is set as well. Thank you.

John G. Roberts, Jr.:

 Thank you,

Michael A. Scodro:

 Thank you.

John G. Roberts, Jr.:

 Mr. Eisenhammer, have three minutes remaining.

Stanley B. Eisenhammer:

 Thank you. Just to answer Justice Kennedy's question about reasonable error on a detention, in that situation, the officer would have the qualified immunity defense that would, assuming it was objectively reasonable, he would -- he would be protected in that situation. With respect to the Seventh Circuit's decision --

Anthony M. Kennedy:

 But there's still a Amendment violation?

Stanley B. Eisenhammer:

 There's still a Amendment violation, but he would have qualified immunity if it -- if he acted with objective reasonableness.  Because it's a Fourth -- Fourth Amendment doesn't have any intent.  You either violate it or not violate it.  There's either probable cause or not.  And then you could superimpose qualified immunity. The Seventh Circuit would have said that there is -- there's no Fourth Amendment right, whether or not the Petitioner filed his claim three years, four years, a million years ago, or the day after he was released.  That's -- that's their position.  So that's why we're here on the question, whether this is a Fourth Amendment violation.  We reject the -- the Seventh Circuit's view that it's a due -- due process.

Sonia Sotomayor:

 So you -- you don't that we don't reach the statute of limitations.

Stanley B. Eisenhammer:

 Correct.  But I do note that the Seventh Circuit, with respect to the statute of limitations to the accrual point -- point, uses favorable termination in their due process cases.

Samuel A. Alito, Jr.:

 What happens in situation?  The person is -- is initially arrested and held for a period of time based on fabricated evidence, but then before trial, shortly before -- before trial, other valid evidence is gathered and the person is convicted at the trial.  Now, does that person have the kind of claim that you are asserting?  And if so, when would -- when would the claim accrue?  Would the favorable termination defeat the claim?

Stanley B. Eisenhammer:

 The -- he would -- at point, if you use Heck as the case that covers this particular issue, he would not -- since he was convicted under Heck, he would not be able to bring the claim if that claim attacks the conviction. If it doesn't attack the conviction, as the Court sort of pointed out in, I think it was in Footnote 7 on suppression hearings or on evidence --

Samuel A. Alito, Jr.:

 I'll say it attacks -- attacks the unlawful detention.

Stanley B. Eisenhammer:

 So it wouldn't have the.

Samuel A. Alito, Jr.:

 It's not the conviction. would not be defeated by --

Stanley B. Eisenhammer:

 Then -- then I would under Heck, the Heck exception, they could bring -- they could bring then suit.

Samuel A. Alito, Jr.:

 Then when would the accrue?

Stanley B. Eisenhammer:

 I think it would accrue that point, at the conviction, as I read Heck.  Because I think it would be -- it would be -- in this particular case, it would be unfair to the -- to the individual to speculate on whether -- what evidence comes out at the -- at the trial to determine whether or not that really -- that probable cause determination may or may not attack the -- the --

Samuel A. Alito, Jr.:

 Well, if the outcome the -- of the trial is irrelevant to the Fourth Amendment claim, as it would seem to be in the case of an unlawful detention, then why should the claim not -- why should the accrual of the claim be tied to the termination of the prosecution?

Stanley B. Eisenhammer:

 Because at the -- at time it -- it has occurred, you -- well, two reasons. You don't know at that time whether or not it does attack the conviction. And second, you don't -- you don't want -- because you don't know whether that evidence heard at the -- at the -- at the -- at the Gerstein hearing may or may not -- some of it may come in; some of it may not. And then the other issue -- the other issue is that you don't want parallel litigation going on, or -- or collateral attack for many of the reasons that -- that was stated in Kaley.

John G. Roberts, Jr.:

 Thank you, The case is submitted.