By Lisa Soronen

It is not unusual for the U.S. Supreme Court to say it is going to decide a particular issue and then decide another issue instead.

In Manuel v. City of Joliet, the court held 6-2 that even after “legal process” (appearing before a judge) has occurred, a person may bring a Fourth Amendment claim challenging pretrial detention. The State and Local Legal Center (SLLC) filed an amicus brief arguing that malicious prosecution claims cannot be brought under the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court didn’t address this issue in its decision.

Elijah Manuel was arrested and charged with possession of a controlled substance even though a field test and a lab test indicated his pills weren’t illegal drugs. A county court judge further detained Manuel based on a complaint inaccurately reporting the results of the field and lab tests. Forty-eight days later Manuel was released when another laboratory test cleared him. 

Manuel brought an unlawful detention case under the Fourth Amendment. The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that such a case had to be brought under the Due Process Clause, which Manuel failed to do.

Justice Elena Kagan explains why pretrial detention after legal process can be challenged under the Fourth Amendment:

"The Fourth Amendment prohibits government officials from detaining a person in the absence of probable cause. That can happen when the police hold someone without any reason before the formal onset of a criminal proceeding. But it also can occur when legal process itself goes wrong—when, for example, a judge’s probable-cause determination is predicated solely on a police officer’s false statements. Then, too, a person is confined without constitutionally adequate justification. Legal process has gone forward, but it has done nothing to satisfy the Fourth Amendment’s probable-cause requirement. And for that reason, it cannot extinguish the detainee’s Fourth Amendment claim— or somehow, as the 7th Circuit has held, convert that claim into one founded on the Due Process Clause."

The Supreme Court left it to the lower court to decide when the cause of action ooccured in this case: When Manuel was arrested or when charges against him were dismissed. If it is when Manuel was arrested, his unlawful detention claim is time barred.

The question the Supreme Court initially decided to answer in this case is whether malicious prosecution claims may be brought under the Fourth Amendment, which is why the SLLC amicus brief focused on this question. Justice Samuel Alito, in his dissenting opinion, chastised the majority for not deciding this question and concluded that malicious prosecution claims cannot be brought under the Fourth Amendment.

Larry Rosenthal of the Fowler School of Law at Chapman University, wrote the SLLC’s amicus brief, which was joined by the National Association of Counties, National League of Cities, United States Conference of Mayors, International City/County Management Association, and the International Municipal Lawyers Association.

Lisa Soronen is the executive director of the State and Local Legal Center and a frequent contributor to the NCSL Blog on judicial issues.