the first case this morning is china versus city of chicago these periods were defined by the district court in the motions for summary judgment decision the court said the arrest is only what happened in the parking lot it's when it's resting officers physically place were shot in custody the court dismissed the chart they claim against the detectives and the watch commanders saying they didn't have any contact with were shot until the police station they also the court also said that the arresting officers had no responsibility for swan against detention once they brought him to the police station the detectives arrived at about seven pm or shot was taken to locked up for processing at about seven seventeen pm and at seven thirty six take place the whole there are no individual officers who are responsible for or claim responsibility for the three to four hour peak wait period from about four four twenty to about seven thirty pm so i'm asking the court to look at first of all the rest period and one thing we're not trying to do is we're not trying to fight at water we're not or the courts two thousand sixteen nonmoving traffic violations and ordinance violation there was never a finding that there was probable cause to arrest him for bank robbery even though the arresting officers claimed that they it's why they were arresting him so when they arrested him for three minor violations he should have been released within a short period of time maybe minutes by taking him to the desk sergeant because bail is preset by the supreme court rule he's entitled to and i bond with the chaos and he possibly might have had to post his his driver's  why is this separate three hour period separately compensable it's all one detention i don't know why it would be separately compensable your client has already recovered f unduly long detention and so carving out a three hour time frame within an unduly long detention is separately compensable i don't just stand the legal theory behind that argue that that's the shot has been compensated for their period they do not argue that at all in their brief that's a period when nothing happened they are arguing that it was processing going on but there was no processing going on the processing the fingerprinting the mug shots they were all it was all done after the detectives arrived nothing was done before he and all the officers did was write tickets they could have taken to the desk sergeant for him to be released on and i found within minutes but they didn't do that so nothing happened during the epic period it's a hiatus and the jury was only constructed to look at the arrest at that late parking lot the that's the responsibility of the arresting officers as defined by the by the court and then they were required to look at the detective's responsibility and the watch commanders responsibility which started at seven pm so there is a three hour period where there is a hate us and no individual defendants have been held responsible but he's  arrested at that point i mean he has been valid lee arrested at that point when he's taken from booking the jury found that there was probable cause to arrest of the there's no false arrest claim left in the case that's been decided conclusively against your client so he's under arrest pursuant to valid probable cause according to the jury and that initial three hour period which you call a hi of the duration of time that someone is awaiting booking whether or not there's this whole policy sitting out there really isn't relevant well there was  processing going on during that but it really doesn't matter if it doesn't really matter he's under arrest he's validly under arrest he can he can claim compensation for the extended duration of the arrest past the forty eight hours that mclaughlin  requires something going to happen take the take the arrestee before a magistrate and get a probable cause determination that's the requirement he's already been compensated for for the delay why is this separate and it's not even a separate three hour period it's just part of a single detention well they have no justification for holding him for the three hours if he was in a row he's under arrest he's already under arrest pursuant to probable cause the fact that it was two or three hours before something actually happened doesn't matter he was under arrest for traffic violations and he would have been it was mandatory that he be released under the preset bail so that that's a state or local law issue what's the constitutional violation for three hours of sitting in jail waiting for something to happen pursuant to a valid arrest well i think the city can say we were processing with him when they were processing him it doesn't matter what was happening if he was under arrest pursuant to valid probable cause there's no basis for a constitutional claim the fact that under local rules or police department policy or local ordinances he might have been released quicker doesn't make any difference it's far as a constitutional theory is concerned well the what he was compensated for was a period of time that the detectives became involved so and there's no known he's been compensated for an unduly long detention two hours past the force right well i think that's one thing i wanted to discuss right now is whether he was compensated for the whole fifty one fifty two hours for which there was never finding  hold him for rafters from the mclachlan so it's a forty eight hour presumption right now doesn't it and that that has sort of in the lore become a kind of rule of thumb but isn't the underlying know broader one that the police have a duty to act promptly and reasonably to get somebody before a judge when they've taken them into custody and if they don't liberally delay that i thought that was the purpose and the the underlying foundation for his claims against the detectives right that's right that's right that's it i mean it's not that he was held past forty eight hours it's that he was held past the reasonable time under the circumstances right but what what was read to the jury as a jury instructions were that they were and i cited in my brief that they that he was karla's to be detained for longer than forty eight hours and you must the damages for that he was held in custody longer than the time allowed her for by law so did the jury get the message there was nothing wrong the detention was just a little bit too long so what was the sixty thousand dollars for was it for the whole force to be a filler in the target and in a targeted in lineups but the district court was confusing its own rulings the court had ruled the feud was illegally detained and now the court is saying in the in the decision that we're appealing plaintiff should be able to allow should be allowed to prove that the city is liable for the first forty eight hours because he was being held i don't think constitutional whole passport culture which is jim carr because this case was split the way it was we're dealing with a very confusing situation as human city's council recognise i think i tend to agree that there's nothing that can be done about the arrest at this point i'd like to ask you briefly about your claim for injunctive relief  you've made strong arguments in your brief to the effect that mr swan again is at heightened risk for he's never going to have another routine traffic stop it is in chicago given the information that is available in the police files  yet it's been ten years has there been any repeat episode i think he has been stopped by the police and he will be stopped by the police he has been stopped by the police and is then i guess and he also has become more of if he stays home because the fear of going out of things well let me just throw out this is this is a crude approach to this problem but the bureau of justice statistics tells us that in an average year an african american man has about a thirteen percent chance of being stopped in a routine traffic stop speeding somebody else over a ten year period at least by my rough calculations and these are national figures not chicago specific but you know over a ten year period that means he's got something like a seventy five percent chance of being stopped and being treated as a suspected armed robber is relevant in our analysis i think i think it is i think that and we don't know enough it's hard to argue chip if we don't know enough what's in the police databases but we suspect that it's in the police databases is something to the effect if  police officer stops and possibly armed and dangerous something like that's probably going to pop up the police report this clear closer port is not going to pop up it's now been put into different databases and that's the kind of thing that's going to be if that you know if you get stopped so please get stock is going to be taken to the station and then then the whole the whole cycle begins so it's not just speculative as it has happened since i have what's happened in the traffic stop since then he has a reasonable likelihood of repeat exposure to the unconstitutional policy you're attacking then so i guess what's the strongest argument in favor of the immediacy of that danger to him requiring an injunction well i think it has to be looked at in conjunction with the records that are pending that the clear close records because the police records show that that  crying was sol that's what close means clear close clear post means it solves exceptional circumstances means and this was all explained that you know it during depositions that there's some outside force that kept us from prosecuting him so what is  he has been labeled as a serial armed robbery robber who goes around of the skies pulls out guns ed at banks and restaurants so i think in conjunction with they have you know he's got a made pleas to court on remand from this court's decision on the previous appeal in this case swann again filed an amended complaint forty purporting to allege three mono claims today i've planned to explain that the district court correctly dismissed all three claims i'll explain the court correctly dismissed two of them the whole past quarter whole policy claim and the line of policy claimed because of the single recovery rule precludes one again from recovering any damages on those claims and he failed to allege facts establishing that he has standing to seek equitable relief on either climb and i'll explain at the district court directly dismissed the remaining claim the clear closed policy claim again failed to identify any constitutional injury that the policy caused and he also failed to allege facts establishing that he has standing concerning the whole past court call policy claim the jury and swan against previous action awarded him sixty thousand dollars in damages for unlawful detention the single recoveries principle bar sim from recovering any additional damages for that injury as want to get the contents that the jury's verdict in the previous action gave him compensation for certain injuries he incurred of the result of the city's hold past  do we have that the prior trial damage award included harm for the time he was held before the detectives who placed the hold that was the basis for the award came in and acted individually well among other things the the mclaughlin case governs what law would apply in this case so regardless of what was actually in the jury instructions that actually took place well note actually very jury instructions matter here what indications do we have in this record that the crile prior trial damage award against the detectives individually and watch commanders included harm for de lay before any of them were individually involved the the jury instructions were not specific on seven action and i think it's on page thirty four which is which addresses exactly what it was but the jury instruction was concerning those damages but of  course the that the instruction concerned the cause of action which as just the cite just judge cites specifically mention that includes compensation for the entire duration of the detention not just pacific parts of it he was lawfully arrested he so how do you how do you hold the detectives responsible for time he if he was unreasonably detained without police doing anything before they got involved well the at the police station there were other officials who made the decision exactly what was what whether or not he was processed during any particular period whether whether a and where those individuals liable for the sixty thousand dollars they were defendants in the case and if they were not whether or not they were actually at the instruction wasn't specific enough to identify specific individuals with specific periods of time that interest certainly true but if there was a problem with that plaintiff needed to appeal that to this court and argue that in this court that there was an error in the case in the instructions that didn't happen if there was a problem and i don't see that there was a problem he was compensated for the entire an reasonable  claim under mclaughlin he had to do that in an appeal if if he didn't like what the instructions were in the end of it and it's also as far as i understand it he didn't see that he didn't he didn't he didn't proffer a jury instruction that would have been specific enough to tease that out which again was his fault on that client who would have standing to seek an injunction against the whole past court called policy dispute described who might have standing well i think it's very difficult for anybody to have standing on that claim might start to envision anyone because a person it has to be likely that a person will be arrested and will and it's from what i can tell from the case law there there there's a presumption against the sunni that police officers will unlawfully is without without foundation we're going to do that as a way to keep control of the streets so the chances that any one individual would have to face  unconstitutional stop in those in the coming year would only be ten percent would would anybody be able to seek an injunction against that policy the the policy is confusing to me as you posit and the reason for that is that a terry stop requires reasonable suspicion let's just do a stop without reasonable suspicion than random on the street we're stopping ten percent of people regardless of whether there's a well of course some of those people there may be reasonable suspicion so you're going below that ten percent how low below the ten percent you'd go i don't know and when you it would be clearly be an unconstitutional policy right it would unconstitutional policy part of the hypothesis would anybody have standing to chant to seek an injunction against them i'm not sure they would and the reason for that is that there would be we haven't established what percentage of the people of the of these persons stopped would be stopped without reasonable suspicion under your hypothetical some would and some wouldn't and depending on how low that is even humiliating bad over a number of years might not make it likely that any particular person would be stopped and so and that person only a particular person who ok you obviously don't like my hypothetical so let's modify it a little bit until i can get an answer let's suppose policy is we're going to just carry out what's the male population of chicago a million and a half two million let's say two million we're going to carry out two hundred thousand  stops of those men without reasonable suspicion every year no individual is more likely than not in the coming year or two to be stopped but if you put a group of one hundred men together in a case the odds are very very high that some of them would be as i understood stand your hypothetical which is that there are still that two hundred thousand people a year are anyone would have a right to seek an injunction right so why is mr swanning indifferent given with respect to the heightened risks he faces in light of the records that plaintiff says exist about him because in none of the statistics that he provide suggests that anybody was that was stopped wrongfully that there was a likelihood that that was all that it was like a u s concern is not about the stock it's about being detained further because of the clear closed record about him with respect to this armed robbery that's right there is no he doesn't allege facts that establish that it is a likely he would even be stopped much less likely that he would be arrested after being stopped which is the pertinent measure for purposes of his first two claims the clear closed policy claim would of course be different  not really the issue for him the issue for him is that as i said over a ten year period any individual man might well be seen as is let's say a certainly greater than fifty maybe greater than seventy five or eighty percent chance of being stopped by police quite lawful but for him he's got this information about him that it will make the police treat him differently well that there's no indication and you tell us that the he there's no reason for him to worry because the police will look at that and see all the prosecutor decided not to press charges so he must be perfectly harmless he doesn't allege that if the police were to stop him because they not have access to the clear close designate the it's a supplementary report of any individual from their squad car or from any and he'll do we know what information pops up about him with that kind of a search can't tell us what information is available to a police officer who were who stops mr swan again you know for speeding or for making an illegal right turn on red or something  accept allegations to the effect that this information is available well if he were stopped for an illegal right turn on a red that would be probable cause not just yes something title to yes the officers would be entitled to stop him under the circumstances no question and arrest him great ok but do they also treat him as an armed robber that's the question i'm not sure what the difference is in treating someone as an armed robber as opposed to two you don't think that makes a difference to a police officer who runs a background check once he gets the driver's license well they certainly they would be entitled to stop him from the right turn on the red and they would be no less entitle to stop him if they learn that he's a robber they would also be hence you're missing you're missing the point maybe i'm not being clear about this he said in your brief page forty we cannot fathom how the clear clothes report could harm plaint well can't the clear clothes report think about somebody stopped by the police reaching for a while or a cell phone there are certainly plenty of incidents like that in recent years where police have fire yes you don't see it a risk there when a police officer sees that this fella shows up if he does and it's an armed robber it's the information of course is not just that he's an armed robber the information that the information on the clearance they face summary report is that he charges were not brought against that would be very comforting to the police officer and the prosecutor decided not to not to prosecute because the witnesses were a little shaky on their ids even though we all know he wasn't the guy who did well i think it would be a cautionary sign to a police officer that  that they must treat him carefully in both in terms of what he might be namely a robber but also in terms of what his civil look civil liberties are because after all he was not charged with the offense that that may come up and of course it's good police practice to have records of of prior investigations concern at first absolutely absolutely no disagreement there but those records have consequences is the point that i think plaintiff is trying to make i understand i understand that but again there is you seem to be denying no i'm not denying it i'm i'm trying to say you can't fathom how those records could harm  right i think that's right because it did it i my understanding is that that they would know that the charges were not brought in because they would know that the charges were not brought they would know that stopping him without reasonable suspicion would be wrong and and if they had reasonable suspicion or even probable cause that they would be entitled to it to arrest him but that that would be true of any one and of the  benefits of the clear patient the clue to the maintaining the clear the key some report in the records of the police department for access by police officers at least at the station which is what i understand it currently is currently that the policy would be the beneficial aspects there are beneficial aspects of that policy as well i see that my time thank you get rid of the whole pass court call policy it's insidious it's belittling unconstitutional the city agrees that it's unconstitutional but we don't seem to have a way to get rid of it and if you follow the city's argument there should never be a mono claim because you're going to get your compensation from from the individuals but what we want if one thing we wanted was to to attack the whole yes court call procedure the council just said that that the three to four hour wait until the whole was place was compensated already but that was not argued in their brief they never said that they they never argued that it's compensated already and in fact the jury instructions say that you cannot hold officers liable for what others did so you could not hold the detectives in the watch commander is liable for whatever happened before they arrived on the scene regarding the clear clothes policy we don't know  alerts are on the police computer and we need a process to contest the fleece reports and i know this is this is really a tough situation because you don't want someone being able to tass police  records just because they want to or because they're found not guilty or or whatever but this was a man who went to a bank to cash a check he was a construction worker he didn't have a criminal record and he needs a process contest that these clot there's clear clothes police records that indicate that he's a serial armed bank and restaurant robber and it does affect him when he gets stopped we don't know to what effect  but we know that he's going to be treated differently and i'm following the case a lot since lyons it there's we have to see this show that there is a reasonable possibility that he's going to be that he's going to be affected again and this is going to be a recurring event plaintiff has set forth legitimate menow claims and we'll ask the court to allow us to go forward this was once again a motion to dismiss a complaint we just want the opportunity to go forward with