ILNews

Attorney can’t recast untimely 4th Amendment claim against prosecutor

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Muncie attorney who sued former Delaware County Prosecutor Mark McKinney, alleging due process violations following his arrest and acquittal on conspiracy to commit bribery charges, lost his appeal before the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. The judges found the attorney was trying to recast an untimely false arrest claim into a due process claim.

Michael Alexander and McKinney butted heads over the years on McKinney’s handling of drug forfeitures involving local law enforcement’s drug task force while McKinney was deputy prosecutor. McKinney was suspended by the Indiana Supreme Court in 2011 after he was no longer prosecutor for his involvement in prosecuting the drug offender cases while pocketing assets seized from defendants in those cases.

After he was elected prosecutor in 2007, the 7th Circuit Court opinion says McKinney sought a way to punish Alexander as an outspoken critic.

Alexander’s colleague, Jeff Hinds, was under investigation by the FBI for possible involvement in a bribery scheme. The FBI originally decided Alexander wasn’t involved, but later allegedly worked with McKinney to bring false charges against Alexander. False and misleading evidence was gathered and submitted to a special prosecutor on conspiracy to commit bribery charges in 2007. That prosecutor was unaware the evidence was false or altered. A jury acquitted Alexander of the charges in 2009. More than a year later, Alexander sued McKinney and the FBI agents. McKinney filed a motion to dismiss, which the District Court granted, finding he was entitled to qualified immunity because Alexander didn’t allege that he was deprived of a cognizable constitutional right.

The 7th Circuit affirmed, finding that Alexander was trying to circumvent his failure to file a timely Fourth Amendment claim for false arrest and his decision to not file a state law malicious prosecution claim. The Circuit Court has squarely rejected similar cases to Alexander’s, where a plaintiff tries to file a due process claim when other state law and constitutional claims are unavailable. He should have used the Fourth Amendment, not the due process clause, to challenge the lawfulness of his arrest, Judge Michael Kanne wrote.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT