Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:

 

Wallace v. Kato

Docket No.: 05-1240
Certiorari Granted: 6/19/2006
Argued: November 6, 2006
Decided: February 21, 2007

Topics:

Fourth Amendment, habeas, habeas corpus, Miranda, murder, probable cause, Section 1983

PartyNames: Andre Wallace v. Kristen Kato, et al.
Petitioner: Wallace
Respondent: Kato

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Wallace
v.
Kato
549 U.S. 384 (2007)
Consideration Limited:

LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: WHEN DOES A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF A FALSE ARREST OR OTHER SEARCH OR SEIZURE FORBIDDEN BY THE FOURTH AMENDMENT ACCRUE WHEN THE FRUITS OF THE SEARCH WERE INTRODUCED IN THE CLAIMANT'S CRIMINAL TRIAL AND HE WAS CONVICTED?

Question Presented:

1. As framed by Judge Posner in his opinion dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc in this case, The panel decision creates an intercircuit conflict on a recurrent issue: when does a claim for damages arising out of a false arrest or other search or seizure forbidden by the Fourth Amendment, or a coerced confession forbidden by the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, accrue, when the fruits of the search or the confession were introduced in the claimant's criminal trial, and he was convicted? 2. When an arrest without probable cause results in eight years of incarceration before charges are dismissed after a final adjudication that a confession of dubious reliability was secured by exploiting the unlawful arrest and, as the tainted fruit of that arrest, is inadmissible under Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975): May damages be recovered in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. ยง1983 for the unlawful seizure that began at the time of arrest and continued to the time that charges were dismissed, or are damages limited to compensation for the brief period of time that elapsed from arrest to arraignment?

Holding: affirmed
Vote: 7-2
Opinion By:
Read WALLACE V. KATO opinion (PDF)

Read opinion
Database Connection failed: SQLSTATE[HY000] [1045] Access denied for user 'restauz8_sophi'@'localhost' (using password: YES)