Skip to content
  • People
    • Howard Kaplan
    • Sarah Grady
    • Jed Glickstein
    • David Schmutzer
    • David Sinkman
    • Nabihah Maqbool
    • John D. Tinder
    • Ashley Cha
    • Sarah Brodwolf
    • Melissa Peña
  • Practice Areas
    • Overview
    • Civil Rights
      • Wrongful Death
      • Medical & Mental Health
      • Sexual Assault
      • Failure to Protect
    • Business Litigation
      • Complex Commercial Litigation
      • Employment Litigation
  • Dispute Resolution
  • Resources
    • Case Developments
    • Seventh Circuit Roundup
    • Prisoner’s Rights Listserv
    • Prisoners’ Rights Resources
    • Press Kit
  • Careers
Contact Us
312-852-2184
Call Today
  • People
    • Howard Kaplan
    • Sarah Grady
    • Jed Glickstein
    • David Schmutzer
    • David Sinkman
    • Nabihah Maqbool
    • John D. Tinder
    • Ashley Cha
    • Sarah Brodwolf
    • Melissa Peña
  • Practice Areas
    • Overview
    • Civil Rights
      • Wrongful Death
      • Medical & Mental Health
      • Sexual Assault
      • Failure to Protect
    • Business Litigation
      • Complex Commercial Litigation
      • Employment Litigation
  • Dispute Resolution
  • Resources
    • Case Developments
    • Seventh Circuit Roundup
    • Prisoner’s Rights Listserv
    • Prisoners’ Rights Resources
    • Press Kit
  • 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

Siding with Plaintiff, Court Rejects Wexford’s Invocation of State Law Privileges and Its Use of “Relevance Redactions”

July 5, 2023

Court Sides with Plaintiff on Numerous Discovery Motions Regarding Third-Party Deaths in Custody 

June 28, 2023

Court Holds that IDOC Violated ADA in Excluding Plaintiff from Accessing Boot Camp Program

February 13, 2023
join our prisoners' rights Listserv
2071 N Southport Ave, Suite 205 Chicago, IL, 60614
  • 1-312-852-2184
  • hello@kaplangrady.com

Terms • Privacy • Accessibility

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

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome

This website contains attorney advertising

Terms • Privacy • Accessibility

© Kaplan & Grady LLC 2023

Please contact us with information about your case

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