Manuel v. Joliet (14-9496)

argument 14-9496

Manuel v. Joliet

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 3m 5 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 4 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the central Fourth Amendment issue presented in Manuel v. Joliet?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We'll hear argument next in case fourteen ninety four ninety six, Manuel versus the City of Joliet.

Unknown 0:07

Mr. Eisenhammer? Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the court, I would like to make three initial points. First, what this case is about is whether the petitioner may bring a Fourth Amendment claim for unlawful detention pursuant to legal process. Second, this case is not about whether the decision to prosecute is governed by due process, the Fourth Amendment, or any other amendment. And third, this case is not about whether there's some constitutional tort named malicious prosecution. All we ask the court to do is to affirm your numerous numerous suggestions made in Albright. that the Fourth Amendment supports This ca cause of action and bring the Seventh Circuit in line with with all other ten with the tenth circuit rule.

John G. Roberts 0:57

But you need to get past the statute of limitations problem, and to do that you need to characterize it, as I understand it, as a malicious prosecution claim, otherwise it's time barred.

Unknown 1:10

What what I need to what we need to do is determine the the not the statute of limitations, which is two years set by state state uh by the state, but the accrual period uh and In Wallace, the Court has said that we you normally look to not the state law, but it's a federal question that you normally look in reference to the common law. And in Wallace they did say that that would be malicious prosecution that does have, as an accrual period, uh favorable termination.

John G. Roberts 1:43

But f favorable termination has nothing to do with the Fourth Amendment claim, right? I mean whether your prosecutions is favorably terminated or not. The Fourth Amendment claim and it seems to me the rule begins when your Fourth Amendment rights are violated with the ill say an illegal Search. Whether you eventually are uh convicted or acquitted, it it really you have a claim for an illegal search if there has been an illegal search without regard to favorable termination.

Unknown 2:14

Our claim technically here is i is detention without probable cause, not the search that occurred when he was when it was arrested. Right,

John G. Roberts 2:23

but I mean regardless, whatever the Fourth Amendment claims.

Unknown 2:26

Right. And that detention is a very important thing. went through for forty eight days after he after he became subject to uh legal process. Um I guess. Was

Elena Kagan 2:37

he subject to proper legal process? If legal process is corrupted. Because there isn't I mean, I always understood legal process as used in Wallace and in our other of our cases. is an independent Intermediary. Generally a judge or a grand jury or someone. who looks at the facts as they exist and independently makes a determination whether probable cause has happened. If you have a corrupted legal process where what the independent um adjudicator. is looking at is not true because it's based on false information. Have you received legal process? Proper legal process?

Unknown 3:28

You haven't received proper legal process. It's been you're you're correct, it's been corrupted. And

Elena Kagan 3:34

so I I thought If you've never received it Тен до тем то For the improper detention. accrue when you're no longer detained. Here it was the not guilty, correct?

Unknown 3:50

Correct.

Elena Kagan 3:51

So it's not a question of whether When it starts, the question is when does the illegal detention finish?

Unknown 3:59

Correct. Right.

Elena Kagan 4:01

And because you had there's been no intermediate force be no intermediary stepping in and breaking the chain of causation, correct? Correct. Is it that's correct.

Unknown 4:15

Yes, you are perfectly

Elena Kagan 4:17

Unknown 4:19

I wish I I could take credit for that, but

Elena Kagan 4:22

No, but I I'm I The only way I could think of it was thinking of it this way, because you're not claiming malicious prosecution or not.

Unknown 4:31

Right. Right you know the Wallace talked about malicious prosecution, but this is a larger issue of nineteen eighty three jurisdiction, which is you know, what is a proper accrual period for a constitutional a constitutional violation? We don't we're not

Elena Kagan 4:51

Detention without problems.

Unknown 4:54

Right. And it's it's you don't you're not you're not straitjacketed into a particular common law y provision. You're you you have the right to fashion one that does justice and this is the one who does d does justice.