ILNews

Boy can't sue for lack of probable cause

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals declined to decide whether Indiana provides a plaintiff an adequate post-deprivation remedy despite the state's recognition of an affirmative immunity defense for government workers acting in the scope of their employment.

In Michael Tully v. Rush County Prosecutor Paul Barada, et al., No. 09-3237, Michael Tully sued prosecutor Paul Barada and probation officer Catherine Custer under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, claiming they violated his Fourth and 14th Amendment rights by summoning him to court and initiating juvenile proceedings without probable cause. A deputy sheriff stopped the car Tully and a friend were in to investigate shots fired in the area. In the car he found a spotlight, rifle, and dead raccoon. The boys admitted they knew it was wrong to shoot from a roadway.

Tully was adjudicated as a delinquent child, but the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed due to insufficient evidence. Tully then filed his federal claims. The District Court dismissed, ruling that a court summons is not a "seizure" under the Fourth Amendment and there isn't a constitutional right not to be prosecuted without probable cause.

The United States Supreme Court hasn't recognized nor foreclosed the possibility of plausibly asserting a right not to be prosecuted without probable cause under Section 1983. One reason why this issue remains "uncrystallized" among Courts of Appeals is because prosecutors can render the question moot by claiming absolute immunity, wrote Judge William Bauer. But Barada and Custer failed to raise that defense in the District Court. In fact, Tully overcame the affirmative defenses of absolute immunity, the existence of probable cause, and res judicata because Barada and Custer waived all of them.

"So we must reach the merits of the issue to which the parties devote their arguments, which is whether a plaintiff may assert a federal right not to be summoned into court and prosecuted without probable cause, under either the Fourth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment's Procedural Due Process Clause," wrote the judge.

But the answer is no, because a plaintiff can't initiate a Section 1983 claim asserting only that he was summoned and prosecuted without probable cause. Judge Bauer cautioned that the holding shouldn't be misconstrued to deny rights to parties in which prosecutors or other officials falsely accuse, tamper with evidence, or commit other independent constitutional violations that Tully didn't allege in his complaint.

Tully's claim is more like one for "negligent prosecution, but the 7th Circuit elected not to decide whether he has an adequate post-deprivation remedy in Indiana, where it recognizes an affirmative immunity defense.

"We find that Tully was not seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment merely by being summoned to appear in court, and that he received procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment when the state court system vindicated him. To the extent any harm to his reputation remains, his recourse is to expunge the juvenile court's records," wrote Judge Bauer.

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT