No products in the cart.


Manuel v. Joliet: Blocking the Courthouse Door to Victims of Police Misconduct

4th-amendmentThis article comes from the

By Jeremiah L. Morgan

With charges of police misconduct increasingly in the spotlight, it is important that individuals who may be aggrieved by such misconduct have lawful avenues to hold police accountable.

On the third day of its October Term (October 5, 2016), the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument to decide whether an Illinois man, wrongfully arrested and charged with a crime, can be blocked from suing a city for its violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.

In March 2011, Elijah Manuel was riding in a car with his brother when the police pulled them over – allegedly for failure to signal a turn. Using racial epithets as they dragged the brothers from the car, the officers took Manuel to the ground, beat and kicked him, and then ripped apart the car, searching for anything illegal but nothing in particular. There is evidence that the police had previously targeted Manuel and his brother for harassment.

The police did manage to find a bottle of vitamins in Manuel’s pocket, which a field test demonstrated were not illegal drugs. The police covered up the results of that test and falsely claimed that the pills were ecstasy. After Manuel was arrested and jailed for possession of drugs, a state police lab once again confirmed that the pills were not ecstasy. The police, however, did not provide this report to the prosecutor, who brought the case before a Grand Jury and, based on the false testimony of the officers, obtained an indictment against Manuel.

The charges against Manual were finally dropped by the prosecutor after he uncovered the police lab report and realized that the charges were utterly baseless – but by then, Manuel had been in jail for 48 days. In addition to the emotional distress of having been wrongly incarcerated for such a lengthy period, Manuel alleged that the City of Joliet and its police officers harmed his reputation, inflicted out-of-pocket financial losses, forced him to drop out of school, and deprived him of employment opportunities.

In bringing suit, Manuel invoked the Fourth Amendment as a basis for his malicious prosecution claim. The Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures is predicated on the right of the people to be secure in their “persons, houses, papers, and effects.”

In its defense, the City of Joliet claimed that Fourth Amendment protections end once a defendant is indicted and arraigned. It claimed that the Fourth Amendment “is concerned with searches and seizures, not prosecutions.” Instead, the city insisted – and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit agreed – that Manuel’s only avenue of relief for malicious prosecution should be through a lawsuit based on the Due Process Clause.

This means that Manuel’s recovery would be limited to compensating him for being jailed during the few days before the Grand Jury indictment was handed down. The city argued that the rest of Manuel’s incarceration – the time when he lost his job and dropped out of school – is not its concern.

When viewed against its common law backdrop, the Fourth Amendment’s protections apply throughout any period of wrongful pretrial detention – up until the point at which all criminal charges are dropped. Therefore, during the entire time that Manuel was jailed, the Fourth Amendment would continue to prohibit the illegal actions of the arresting authorities.

Read more here.



Shorty Dawkins