Skip to content
  • Team
  • Practice Areas
    • Civil Rights
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Alternative Dispute Resolution
    • Access to Medications for Opioid Use Disorder
  • Resources
    • General Resources
    • Case Developments
    • Seventh Circuit Roundup
    • Prisoners’ Rights Listserv
    • Opioid Use Disorder
  • Careers
  • Team
  • Practice Areas
    • Civil Rights
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Alternative Dispute Resolution
    • Access to Medications for Opioid Use Disorder
  • Resources
    • General Resources
    • Case Developments
    • Seventh Circuit Roundup
    • Prisoners’ Rights Listserv
    • Opioid Use Disorder
  • Careers
Contact Us
312-852-2184
Call Today
  • Team
  • Practice Areas
    • Civil Rights
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Alternative Dispute Resolution
    • Access to Medications for Opioid Use Disorder
  • Resources
    • General Resources
    • Case Developments
    • Seventh Circuit Roundup
    • Prisoners’ Rights Listserv
    • Opioid Use Disorder
  • Careers
  • Team
  • Practice Areas
    • Civil Rights
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Alternative Dispute Resolution
    • Access to Medications for Opioid Use Disorder
  • Resources
    • General Resources
    • Case Developments
    • Seventh Circuit Roundup
    • Prisoners’ Rights Listserv
    • Opioid Use Disorder
  • Careers
Mitchell v. Doherty
37 F.4th 1277 (7th Cir. 2022)

The Court (Rovner/St. Eve/Jackson-Akiwumi, with St. Eve writing) held that the 4th Amendment does not require a person to be given a bail hearing within 48 hours of arrest (and requires only that a probable-cause determination occur, which can be done ex parte). The opinion is notable for its detailed discussion about the role that the 4th Amendment plays for a person in custody where a probable-cause determination has already occurred. Of course, after that detailed discussion, the Court simply says, “we need not decide whether the 4th Amendment applies” after a probable-cause determination, because either way, plaintiffs lose (bail hearings w/in 68 hours don’t violate the 4th Amendment). Folks representing people in pretrial custody will want to think about whether this opinion opens the door to some sort of 4th Amendment claim. And even if it doesn’t, it’s worth noting that St. Eve repeats her comment from an earlier opinion (Pulera) that on some issues, the standard of proof required under the 4th and 14th Amendment are identical.

Mitchell v. Doherty 6.22.22Download
PrevPrevious
NextNext

More
Summaries

Burns v. Polk

August 19, 2026

Felton v. Johnson

August 19, 2026

Passwater v. Pretorius

August 19, 2026
join our prisoners' rights Listserv
2071 N Southport Ave, Suite 205 Chicago, IL, 60614
  • 1-312-852-2184
  • hello@kaplangrady.com

Terms • Privacy • Accessibility

Terms/Privacy • Accessibility

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome

This website contains attorney advertising

© Kaplan & Grady LLC 2026

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome • This website contains attorney advertising

Please contact us with information about your case

By submitting this form you agree to receive SMS from Kaplan & Grady. Carrier and Data rates may apply. Message frequency may vary. Reply STOP at any time to end messaging or Reply Help for more information.

By submitting this form you agree to receive SMS from Kaplan & Grady. Carrier and Data rates may apply. Message frequency may vary. Reply STOP at any time to end messaging or Reply Help for more information.

Your submission will be reviewed and a notification will be emailed.