## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 10

- 3523 R I CK A LE MAN, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. V IL LAGE OF H AN O V ER P ARK, e tal ., D efend a nts-A pp ellees

.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 07 C5049

—E lai ne E . Bu cklo, Judge

.
A RG UE D S EP TE MBE R 26, 2011

— D ECI DE D N OVE MBE R 21, 2011

Befo re C UDAH Y, P OSNER, a nd W OO D , C ircu it Judges . P O SNER, Cir cu i tJudg e . The pl ai nti ffi n thi s s uitunder 42 U .S .C . § 1 983 ap p eals from the gran t of su m m ary j ud gm ent in f avo r ofthe defe nd ants

— tw o Illinoi s s tat e police offi cer s ( Gerar d Fal l on a nd J ose ph M i cci ) , thr ee p olic e o ffice rs of t h e V i l lag e o f H an ov er P ar k, Illin ois ( To dd Car l so n, Ca r o l Lus sky, a nd Er i c Vi l l an ue va ) , a nd the Vil l age i tse l f

. T h e sui t, wh i ch se eks dam age s, char ges th e ind i vi du aldefendants with havi ng twic e f al sely2 N o. 10

- 3523

ar r es te d the pl aint i ff, Ri ckAl eman, i n v i o l at i o n o fthe Fo urth A m en d m en t’s p ro h ibit ion of u n re as on ab le se i zu r es , a nd h av i ngque st i o ne d hi m i n v i o l at i o n o fthe M i r anda ru le, elic itin g s p u riou s e v id en c e t h at led to h is secon d arres t a nd an ind ictm en t for m urd er. Th ere are als o s u p p lem en ta l cla im s u n d er Il l i n o i s la w , bu t o n ly o ne

— m alicio us pro secuti on

— r emai ns i n the c as e; the di s t r i c tj ud g e di s mi s s e d the o the r s a s b a r r ed b y the a pp lica b le s ta tu te of lim ita tio n s, an d A lem an d oe sn ’t c h all enge thos e di sm i ssa l s. W e al so won ’ t ha ve to di sc us s the Vi l l ag e’ s l i ab i l i ty
. The Vil l age w as not i m pli cate d in the al l ege d m i sbehavior o f its offic er s a n d ca n n otin a se c tio n 19 83 su it b e h eld li able j us t by virtue of havin g been the offi cers’ em p loyer. M o n e l l v. D epa rtm ent o f So cia l Serv ices , 4 3 6 U. S
. 6 5 8 , 6 91 ( 1978 )
. S o w i thout furtherado w e a ffi rm the dist ri ct cou rt’s grant of sum m ary j ud gm en t in i ts favor. W e s h all st ate the f acts as f avo rabl y t o the pl ai nti ffas the r eco rd p er m its, as we are r equi re d to do w hen dec i di nga n a ppea l fr o m a g r ant o fs um m ar y j udg m en t i n f avo r ofthe defe nd ants. W e d on’ t v ouch f orthe tr uth of the facts th at th e plain t iff all eges, thou gh there doesn’ t see m to be m uch doubt thathi s m ai n f actual al l ega ti ons ar e t rue. A lem an prov ided da y care in h is hom e. H is day-care se r v i c e wa s o nl y fi v e mon ths o l d whe n the e v e nt s o uto f whi chthi s ca se a r i se s t o o kpl ac e. Butthe r e i s no c o nt en ti on that he l acke d th e requi si te com petence. H e had fi ve c hi l dr eno fhi s o wn, r an g i ngi n a g e f r o m 3 to 15 ; a nd se ve r alo fthe y o ung ero ne s wer e i n h i s dayc ar e al o ngN o. 10

- 3523 3 wi ththr ee o th erc hi l dr en, o ne ofw ho m was a n 1 1- m o nthold n am ed J oshua S chri k. W e’ l l se e that Ale m an kne w how to per f or m CPR o n i nfa nts. O n th e m orning of Sep tem ber 9, 2005 , J o sh ua ’s m oth er, D a n i e l l e S c h r i k, dr o pp e d o ffJ o s h u a a tA l e ma n ’ s h o me f or h i s thi rd day o fday c ar e. Duri ng the fi rs t tw o days Joshu a ha d been l eth argic and feverish. O n Sep tem ber 9 he was m uch w or se. S hor tl y a fter a rrivinghe b ega n gas ping f orai r, then col l apsed; the al ar m ed A l em an pi ck ed hi m up an d, b ec au se the i nf an t w as sho wi ngno si gns o fl i fe, sho ok hi m ge ntl y in an e ff or t t o el i ci t a r es po ns e. The r e was no ne . Af te r per f o r m i ng CPR wi thno effect ex ce pt to b r i ngfl ui ds o uto fJ o sh ua ’ s no se a nd m o uth, A l eman ca l l ed 91 1. An a m bul an ce a r r i ve d a nd to ok th e c h ild to a h os p ita l. Pol i ce o ffi cer s a rr ive d atA l em an’ s ho m e about w hen th e a mb u l a n c e d i d a n d qu e s t i o n e d h i m. O n e o fth e m, O fficer Lu ssky (a de fend an t), asked him and his w ife to com e down to th e p olic e s tat i on. They di d so. A l em an was pla ced i n an i nter ro gat i on ro om . Fo rty- fi ve m i nutes lat er, no i nt er r o g at i o n h av i ngt ak enpl ac e, he as ke d L u ss ky w h et h er h e c o u l d le av e a n d co m e b ac k in an hour. She sai d no ; he w as und er arrest

— an d the ar re st acti vate d his M i r anda righ t s . O r egon v. M at hi as on , 429 U
. S. 492, 494-95 (1977 ) (per cu riam ). M or e than fi ve hours l ate r, Offi cer s M i cciand Vi l l anueva ( tw o othe r defe nd ants) ente re d th e inter ro gat i on r oo m i n w hi ch A l em an was bei ng detained a n d M i cci tol d him he’ d tal ked to s everalpeopl e about w hat had h appened to J oshua a nd thatA l em an had “the m ost4 N o. 10

- 3523 inform ation.” A lem an said h e w a n ted to callhis l aw yer. M i cci re sponded by beginning to fi l l out a w ai ver of M i r anda r i ghts f orA l em an t o si gn, and m i nutes l ate r sa i d t o hi m “ be f o r e It al kt o y ou Iwoul d l i k e th i s [ th e w ai ver ] si gn ed ” but that A l em an co uld ca l l hi s l aw yer fi rs t. A l em an cal l ed and d uri ng the phone co nver sat i on Vi l l an ue va pi ck ed up the pho ne an d spo k e to the l awy er, who t o l d hi m tha t Ale m anwas i nv o k i nghi s r i g ht to re mai n s i l e nt
. T ha tdi d n o tc o un ta s a n i nv o c a ti on ofA l em an ’ s M i r anda r i g h t s , h o we v e r ; th e S u p r e me Cou r t ha s he l d th at th ey ca n be i nv o k ed o nl y by the p er s o n be in g q u es tio n ed

. M oran v. Bur b i ne, 47 5 U.S
. 41 2, 433 n
. 4 ( 1986 ). A fterthe phone cal l ended, M i ccias ked A lem an, “How w e d oin g? ” an d A lem an re p lied , “N ot go od

. I c alle d h im and he to l d m e no t to d o th i s r i ght no w . ” Alem an added th a th e wa s t i r e d a nd wa nt e d t o g o h o me, b utMi c ci r es po nde d: “ I f I d on’t ge t to t al kt o y o u, y o u’ r e no t g o i ng h o me . ” He al s o t o l d h i m th a ti fh e t a l k e d t o th e t wo offic er s h e c ou ld “h elp [h im ]se lf ou t” an d “c lea r th is u p .” A l em an as ked wh etherhe c ou ld s peak t o hi s l aw yer aga i n an d t h e o ffi cer s s ai d he coul d. I n thi s ca l l A l em an to ld th e l awy er“ Iwi shy o u wer e he r e” a nd “ Ine ed y o ur hel p . . . . Ican’ t hel p m yse l fi n her e. ” Alem an was perm i tte d t o make a ddi ti o na l c al l s, a nd r ea ch ed hi s m oth er a nd a frie n d a f t e r failin g t o re ac h h is w ife, bu t e ve n tu ally the o ffi cer s s ai d: “H ang up the phone, Ri ck, and have a s e a t
. And I a s kth a ty o u d o n ’ tu s e th e p h o n e u n t i l we de c i de wh a t we ’ r e g o nn a do

. ” Al e manr e s po nd e d: “I ta lke d to m y law ye r, you kn ow , an d I tr ied to ta lk h imN o. 10

- 3523 5 in to d oin g it, an d h e t old m e t o go ah ea d

. . . . I re ally don’thave a probl em doi ng i t. ” ( I fthat ’ s ind ee d wh at th e la w ye r sa id

— hi s e nd o fth e conver sat i on was not re cor ded

— he v i o l at ed J us ti ce J acks o n’ s di ctum tha t “a ny l awy erwor th h is s al t wi l l t el l the s us pec t i n n o uncert ai n ter m s to m ake no sta tem ent to pol ice u n d er any c i rcum sta nces. ” Wat t s v. Indi ana , 338 U
. S. 49, 59 ( 1949 ) ( se par at e o p inio n)
. ) M i cc i f o l l o wed up bya g ain a sk i ng Ale m ant o s i g n the wai ve r . He di d s o a nd the offi cer s then questi oned hi m f orf our hours. Du ring the i nter ro gat i on M i ccir epeate dly to l d A l em an th at h e’d ta lke d to th re e d oc to rs an d a ll ha d to ld h im th atJ o shua ha d b een sh ake n in s ucha way tha t he w ou ld h av e b ec om e un re sp on siv e (u n c on sc iou s) im m ed iate l y, m eani ng tha t Ale m an ’s sh aking m ust hav e ca used J o sh ua’s i nj ur y, s i nc e J o sh ua was s l ug g i shb utc o ns ci o us w h en he a rr i ved atA l em an’ s ho m e that m or ni ng. This ac c ou n t o f w h at th e d oc to rs h ad sa id w as a lie, bu t it e l i c i t e d fr o m A l e ma n th e s t a t e me n tth a t“ Ikn o w i n my hear t that i fthe on ly w ay to cause [ the inj uri es] i s t o sh ake t h a t b aby, then , w he n I sh ook tha t bab y, Ihu rt th at ba b y . . . . Iad m it it. I d id sh ak e t h e b ab y t o o h ar d .” Yet interm i tte ntl y thro ughout the pro tr acte d i nter ro gati on he continued to deny, and expres s di sbel i ef, that he co uld have cause d the i nj ury. Part l y o n the b asi s o fhi s s up posed “co nfe ssi on, ” Alem an w as charg ed w i th ag gr avat ed batt er y o fa chi l d. Offi cer Carl son ( anothe r defe nd ant, o fwh om m or e s h or tly) prepar ed the charg e, Vi l l anueva s i gned the cri m i nal com pla i nt, and at the subsequent bond hearing the pro se-6 N o. 10

- 3523

c u to rs , rep ea tin g w h at th e o f f ice rs h ad to ld th em , told th e jud ge th at A lem an h ad co n f e s se d to vio len tly shaking J oshua a nd causing hi s inj uri es. J oshua di ed on S eptem b er 13
. The char ge aga i nst A l e man wa s up pe d t o fi r s t
- de g r e e mur de r a nd he was r e a r r e s t e d o n S e pte mbe r 1 5 a nd l a t e r i nd i c t e d. He ma de bai l, as he had done afterhi s o ri gi nal ar re st. Odd l y, we’ve be enunabl e to de te r m i ne wi thc er ta i nty ho w l o nghe spent i n j ai l. A t hi s deposi ti on he sai d a m onth; at o r ala r g um en t his lawye r s ai d e i g hto r nine da y s. But th e l e n g t h of tim e t h at A lem an w as in jail, w h ile re lev an t t o t h e a m ou n t o f d am ag es th at h e m igh t b e a b le to ob ta in if h e w in s t h is c as e, is irre lev an t t o t h is a p p ea l. The case ag ai nst him qui ckl y di si ntegr ate d. A pro secutor view i ng the vi deotape ofthe i nter ro gat i on by M i cciand Vi l l anueva deci ded t h at i t was “m or e e xculpator y than i nculpato ry, ” a nd th at i t a l so ra i sed i ssues un d er M i r anda

. The docto rs w h o had exam i ned Jo shua, an d di agno se d hi m wi ths ubdu r alhe m at o m a ( bl ee di ng in th e bra in, u su ally th e re su lt of a h ea d inju ry ), eve n tu ally d ec id ed t h a t t h e in fan t’s slu gg ish an d fev er ish co n d iti on f orse ver aldays befo re Se ptem ber 9 coul d ha ve been c a u s e d b y a v i o l e n ts h a k i n go r b y a b l o w t o th e h e a d, and that J oshua’ s co l l apse o n Se ptem ber9 coul d have been the del aye d effect ofthi s e ar l i ertr aum a r atherthan o fa ny th i ngAl eman ha d do ne

— in fa c t A lem an ’s m ild sh aking of J osh ua w as t he prop er initiation of C PR
. U
. S. N at ion al L ibr ar y of M ed icin e, M e dl i nePlu s , “C P R- in fan t,” w w w . nl m . ni h. gov /m edlin ep lu s/ en c y/ ar ti cl e/ 0000 11. htm (vis ite d N ov em b er 16 , 201 1), su m m ar izin g M .F. H az in sk i, R
. Sam son & S. Sche xn ay d e r , “ 2010 H an d book of Em er-N o. 10

- 3523 7 gencyCardi ova scul arCare fo r H eal thcar e Pr ovi ders” (A m erican H eart A ssociation 20 10). This expla nati on was acce pted by an experi enced i nvest i gat orem plo yed bythe I l l i noi s Depart m ent o f Chi l dr ena nd Fa m i l y S er vi ce s, M i ch ae l Bo o k er, who ha d di sc o ve r ed th atJ o sh ua ’ s m o th erwas a v iol ent perso n w i th a c rim in al r eco rd. S he was known to have beat en and viol en tly sh a k e n Josh ua and had been heard to m ake thr eat s t o ki l l hi m . A l though the m edi calpro fessi on o nce thought that there i s no i nterim betw een t r a uma a nd c o l l a ps e i n s ha k e n-b a b y s y nd ro m e , the me dica l p ro fes sio n n ow be liev es (an d ap p ar en tly be l i e v e d in 2005

— Booke r cer tai nl y b el i eve d thi s) thatther e ca n be an inte r i m i n whi chthe c hi l d woul d b e co ns ci o us , b ut probabl y l ethar gi c o r fussy orfeve ri sh o r have difficu l ty sl eepi ng o r eat i ng. S ee Em i l y Baze l on, “S haken- Baby Sy nd ro m e F aces N ew Questi ons i n Court, ” N ew Yo rk Tim e s M agazi ne, Feb . 6, 201 1, p . M M 30 ; St a te v. Edm und s , 746 N
. W
. 2d 590, 59 6 ( W i s. A pp . 20 08) ; Kri styB. A rbo gas t, Susan S. M ar gul i es & C in d y W
. Chri sti an, “Ini ti alN euro l ogi c Pr ese ntati on i n Young Chil dren S ustai ni ng Infl i cted and U ni ntenti onalFa talH ead I nj uri es ,” 116 P ediat ri cs 18 0 (2005)
. Thu s o ne o fthe do ct o r s who tr ea te d J o sh ua after hi s col l apse expla i ned that w hen he tol d th e p ol i ce th a tJ o s h u a wo u l d n o th a v e b e e n a l e r ta n d fu n c t i o ni ng afterthe i nj ury, h e m eant that J oshua woul d not hav e been behaving l i ke a no rm al11

- m onth- old , notthat he would have bee n unconsci ous. A l em an was nevertr i ed. On N ove m ber13 , 20 06

— m ore than a yea r afterhi s arr est s a nd J oshua’ s death

— th e8 N o. 10

- 3523 charg es aga i nst hi m were dism i sse d. Daniel l e S chri k, the mo the r, wa s n e v e r c ha r g e d. Car l so n, who pl ay ed th e ce nt r alr o l e i n s cr ewi ngup th e investigation ( qu ite p o s sibly d eliberat ely, as w e’re a b o u t t o s e e ) , h a d b e e n d i s p a t c h e d t o th e h o s p i t a l i mm edi ate l y a fterJ os h u a w as tak en the re o n Se ptem ber9, to i nt er vi ew J o sh ua ’ s f ami l y a nd the do ct o r s who wer e ca r i ngf o r hi m . He a sk ed Dan iel le whe th ers he ha d e ve r s tr uckJ o sh ua a nd s he s ai d no , a l th o ug h s he ac k no wl edg ed th athe ’ d ha d a fev eri n the da y s lea di ng up to hi s co l l apse. Thi s s houl d h av e b een a warni ng tha t hi s c o l l a ps e o n S e pt e mbe r 9 mi g hth a v e b e e n c a us ed by a bl ow or a s haki ng se vera l days ear l i erthathad fi rs t m ani fest ed i tse l fi n hi s fev er and l ethar gy, as Book er re cogni zed wh en he l ear ned ofthe feve r. N eve rthel ess C ar lso n d ec id ed h e w ou ld inv es ti g at e D an ielle Sc h rik no fur th er . F r o m h is s ubs eque ntc o nduc t i n a tt empti ng to pr o te cthe r fr o m que st i oni ngb y Bo o k era nd in h o lding h er han d and sobbing w ith he r at J osh ua ’s funeral, a re aso nabl e j ury m i gh t i nfe r that he was sexual l y a ttr acte d to h er and f orthatr eas on wanted to k ee p the i nv es ti g at i o n f o cus ed o n Al eman. W hen Book er, the ex p er t on chi l d abuse, l ear ned of Carl son’ s deci si on t o t er m i nate the invest i gat i on o f Daniel l e, he was di sturbed and on Sep te m ber13 , the day of J osh ua ’s dea th, i nt erview ed Da niell e in Ca rlson’s prese nce. S he acknow l edged so m e ofhercr i m i nal bac kgr ound, w hi ch i ncl ud ed cr i m es ofviolence, but not al l o f i t. A ccor din g to sta tem ents by her m othe r and her boy

f ri end, Danie lle had bro ken he r m othe r’ s j aw and thr eat
ened to ki l l herand J oshua; s he had had physi calfi ghtsN o. 10

- 3523 9

w i th J oshua’ s f atherand bee n a rrested and char ged w i th batt er y du ring one of thos e fi ghts; and he r m othe r ha d se en h er s ha ke Joshu a f r eque nt l y a nd the m othe r’ s bo yfri end had had to pro tectthe chi l d fr om Daniel l e. Car l son told Dani el l e no t to s pea kt o Bo o k ero r a ny othe r i nvest i gat or, and w hen B oo kerr epeate dlytr i ed to cal l herafterthe in itiali nter vi ew ther e was neve r a r esponse. A tJ o s hu a ’ s a ut o ps y o n S e pt e mbe r 1 4 , wh i c h b oth Bo o k e r a nd C ar l s o n a t t e nd e d, the p a tho l o g i s to pi ne d, acco rd in g to Book er ’ s no tes , thati t was “hi ghl y unl i kel y” that J oshua’ s inj uri es had b ee n caused byA l em an, since th e sym p tom s Joshu a ha d disp laye d in th e d ays before hi s co l l apse were co nsi ste nt with hi s a l re ady havi ng a subdu ra l hem ato m a. But l ate r that day Carl son re turned to the pa th o lo g i st ’ s o ffi ce a l o ne a nd t o l d he rtha t J o sh ua had been “ behaving nor m al l y” w hen he a rr i ved at A lem an ’ s ho us e o n the ninth a nd i nde ed was “ up a nd runni ng ar ound.” These l i es c aused herto change her opi nion a n d she t ol d the pro secuto r that the inj ury to Joshu a’s head had occu rred w h ile h e w as in A lem an ’s car e. O n t h e ba si s o fthi s m i si nfo rm ati on the pro secuto r approve d charg ing Alem an with m urder, and Carl son si gned the cri m i nal co m pla i nt and ar re ste d him

. A fter eve nt ual l y l ear ni ng the tr uth, the pathol ogi st re i nstat ed h e r o r i g i n a l o p i n i o n o fth e c a u s e o fJ o s h u a ’ s h e ma t o ma an d s ubs eque ntde ath. The distri ct j ud ge w as cor re ct t o rul e that the ar re st o f Al e ma n o n th e mo r n i n g o f S e p t e mb e r 9 wh en he10 N o. 10

- 3523

wa s t o l d h e c o ul dn ’ tl e a v e the p o l i c e s t a t i o n wa s s up port ed by probabl e cause. I t w as natura l f or the pol i ce to suspect hi m , as he was the l astper son to have had c us t o dy o fJ o s hu a a nd a dmi t t e d h a v i ngs ha k e n hi m . By the t i m e he w as ar re ste d the hos pit alhad i nform ed th e p o l i c e th a tth e y ’ d di a g n o s e d J o s h u a ’ s h e ma t o ma an d b el i ev ed hi m t o b e a vi ct i m o f sh aken-babys y nd ro m e. P olic e in t e rv iew ed th e d oc to rs , w h o t old th em, mis l ea di ng l y ( as the y a l l l at era dm i tt ed) , th at th e i nj ury had been fre shl y c aused

— the doct or w ho use d th e te r m “ f r es h” l at ere xpl aine d tha t “f resh ” m ea nt “w ith in ab o u t a w ee k,” bu t t h e p olic e q u ite n at u ra lly i nter prete d i t t o m ean “ today. ” An d im m edi ate l y a fter J oshua w as taken a w ay i n the am bul ance, A l em an had been hear d to say“a t l eas t tw ice thathe di d not want to go to j ai l f orthe re st ofhi s l i fe a nd di d not want to be unabl e to s ee hi s ch i l dr en . ” T he f ac t th atCa r l so n’ s i nte r vi ew o fJ o sh ua ’ s m o th er h ad be enpe r func to r y a nd that he m ay al re ady have bee n tryi ng to p ro tectherf or re aso ns o f “lust ” ( as A l em an’ s br i efputs i t) i s i rr el evant; the t estf orpro babl e cau se a b stract s fro m the sta te of m in d of th e a rre st in g off ice r. Whren v . U n i t e d S ta tes , 51 7 U
. S. 806, 812-13 (1996 ). The s ec o nd a r r es t, the a r r es t f o r murde r, i s a di ffer en t m at te r . Had C ar l so n n o t l i ed to the pa th o l o g i sta nd o bs tr ucted Boo k er ’ s eff o r ts t o i nv es ti g at e Dani el l e, the pr o se cut o r woul d ha ve ha d no bas is f o r c ha r g i ng A l em an with m urder ora n y othe r cri m e, and so A l em an w ou ld n oth av e b ee n rea r r e s t ed . For w ith ou t C ar lson’ s obstr ucti on of j usti ce the pathol ogi st’ s e val uati on w ou ld h ave ten d ed to ex one rate A lem an, and Book er’s i nvest i gat i on o fDanie l l e w ou l d have i denti fi ed herasN o. 10

- 3523 11 f armor e l i k ely t o ha ve b ee n J o sh ua ’ s k i l l er tha n Al eman. A nd w ithou t im p rop er tact ics by th e p oli ce at A le m a n ’s i nter ro gat i on ( d iscusse d next) , ther e would have bee n n o “ c on fes sio n ” t o p ro vid e e vid en c e o f h is gu i l t . In su m , the pol i ce l acke d probabl e ca use t o ar re st A l em an the s eco nd ti m e, an d so thatar re st vi ol ate d the F ourth A m en d m en t. Sro ga v. Weiglen , 6 49 F.3d 604 (7th C ir. 2011). So cl ear is t h e absence o fpro babl e ca use that Car l son cannot tak e s hel teri n the doctr i ne o f q u al i fi ed i m m unity, w h ich p ro vid es a d efe n se if a re as on ab le offic er c o u ld ha v e mi s t a k e nl y b e l i e v e d tha tp r o b a b l e caus e e xi s t e d. Wo llin v . Go nd ert, 1 9 2 F .3 d 61 6, 62 1 (7 th C ir. 19 99 ). A re as on ab le offic er kn ow in g w h at C ar lso n kn ew w ou ld not hav e thou gh t tha t A lem an w as p robab ly Joshu a’s kille r. W he the r the i nt e r r o g a t i o n o fAl e manv i o l a t e d M i r anda is a se p ar at e q u es tio n . T h e d ist ric t jud ge ru led th at it did n ot because the offi cer s m i ght r eas onabl y hav e be

l i eve d that Ale m an had w ai ved hi s M i r anda r i ghts. I fand w hen A l em an i nvoke d his ri ght to counsel, M i cci a n d V i l l a n u e v a w e r e r e q u i r e d t o s t o p qu e s t i o n i n gh i m. “[ W ] hen an a ccused has i nvoke d h is right to have c ou n se l p re se n t d u rin g c u st od ial in te rro ga tio n, a va lid wa i v e r o ftha tr i g htc an no tb e e s t a b l i s he d b y s howi ng only thathere s pond e d t o f ur t he rpolice-ini t i at e d c us t odi al inte rroga ti on even if

he has be en a d v ised of his rights

. We fu rt h er h old th at an ac c u s e d

. . . , ha vin g e x p re ss ed h is desi re to dealwith the pol i ce o nl y thro ugh counsel, i s no t s u b je c t t o fu rt h er int er ro ga tio n by th e a u th or itie s u n til co uns elha s be enmade av ai l ab l e to him , unl es s th e acc us ed hi m se l fi ni ti at es fur th erc o m m uni ca ti o n, e x-12 N o. 10

- 3523 changes , o r conve rs ati ons w ith t he pol i ce. ” Edwards v. A r izona , 4 5 1 U
. S
. 4 7 7, 4 8 4

- 8 5 ( 1 9 8 1 ) ( e mp h a s i s a d de d; f oo tnot e o m i tte d); s ee al so M i r anda v. Ar izona , 384 U
. S. 43 6, 47 4 (1 96 6); D a vis v . U nited Sta tes , 51 2 U.S. 452, 45 8- 59 (1994). A l em an i nd i cate d a d esi re f orthe ass i sta nce o fco unsel tw i ce, and onl y a fterr espondi ng to furthe r pol i cei ni ti ate d custodi ali nter ro gat i on di d he ag re e t o be ques

tione d . H e said fir st “I gotta ca llm y guy” ( his law yer) an d a fterspeak i ng to hi m r epor ted thatthe l aw yerhad told h im notto speakto the pol i ce

— yetM i ccico nti nued to urg e hi m to si gn a M i r anda wa i v e r . Al e mani nvoke d hi s r i ght t o counselthe seco nd ti m e when he ask ed to cal l hi s l aw yerag ai n. H e m i ght have done so a thi rd ti m e, b u t w a s p re ve n te d w h en M icc i or V illan u ev a t old h im to ha ngup an d a dded, “ Ia sktha t y ou d on’ t us e th e p h o n e a ga in u n til w e d ec id e w h at w e’r e g on n a d o.” W hen a suspect i nvoke s hi s rig ht to co unsel, the pol i ce m ay not rec om m en ce q ue stioning u nless th e sus p ect’s l aw yeri s pre sent orthe su sp ec t ini ti ate s the co nver satio n h im se lf. M i nni ckv. M ississ ippi, 49 8 U.S
. 14 6, 15 1- 52 (1990). I ns tead of shu tting u p after A lem an sough t his l aw yer’s ai d, the o ffi cer s, expl oi ti ng hi s di stra u gh t s tat e, badge re d hi m t o w ai ve hi s M i r anda r i g ht s, a s i n M inn ickv. M ississ ippi, sup ra , 4 98 U .S. at 1 48 -52 , Sm ith v. Il li nois , 46 9 U.S
. 91 , 92- 93, 9 8

- 9 9 ( 1 9 8 4 ) ( pe r c ur i a m) , a nd U ni t e d S t at e s v. Lee , 41 3 F
. 3d 622, 62 4, 6 27( 7th Ci r . 2 00 5)
. I n M innickthe pol i ce l eft offquesti oni ng the suspectafterhe a ske d to spe akt o hi s l awy er, a nd a l l o wed hi m t o c o ns ul t wi ththe l aw yer . But then a pol i ce o ffi cercam e byand que st ionedN o. 10

- 3523 13 h i m o u t s i d e th e l a wy e r ’ s p r e s e nc e , a n d th e S u p r e me C o u r t ru led th at th is w as a viol ation of M i r anda a nd Edwards bec ause i t was not t ru e that “ the pr ote cti on [conferred by] Edwards t er m i nates o nce co unsel has con su l te d wi ththe s us pec t. I n c o nt ex t, the r equi r ement that counse l b e ‘m ade ava i l abl e’ to the accused r efer s t o m or e than an o pp or tuni ty t o c onsul t with an at torney outsi de the i nter ro gat i on r oo m . ” 4 98 U
. S. at15 1- 52. T h e d efe n d an ts arg u e t h at A lem an ’s in vo c at ion of h is rig h t t o c ou n se l w as a m b igu ou s an d th er efo re ine ffec tu al, as i n D avi s v. U ni t e d Sta tes , sup ra , 5 12 U. S
. a t 45 9. But in vo c at ion j u st req u ire s a “s ta te m en t t h at ca n rea so n ab ly be c onst rued to be an e x p re ssi on o fa desi re f orthe ass i stance of a n attorney, ” id

. , and w e hav e held that there w as n o a m b igu ity w h en a su sp ec t s aid , “I th in k I sh ou ld cal l m y l aw yer . ” U nited Sta tes v. Lee, sup ra , 41 3 F
. 3d at 6 2 6 ; s e e al so L o rd v. D uckw orth , 29 F. 3d 1216 , 12 19- 21 ( 7th C ir. 19 94 ). I t’s tru e t h a t “ am I going to beableto ge t a n att or ney?” w as h eld am bi guous and hence i neffectual in U ni t e d S t at e s v. Sh ab az , 5 7 9 F
. 3 d 8 1 5 , 8 1 9 ( 7 th Cir
. 20 09) (em phasi s in or i gi nal ) , but thi s ca se i s cl ose r to Lee than to Shab az . Any wa y the de fe nd a nt s ’ a r g ume nt c o mes to o l at e; the y f o r fei te d i t byf ai l i ngt o make i t i n the dist ri ct c ourt
. The M i r anda r u l e i s i n t e n d e d t o b a c k s t o p th e r i g ht confer re d by the Fi fth A m endm ent no t t o be com p ell ed to i ncri m i nate ones el f, byexcl ud in g from the defen d an t’ s t ri althe confess i on that the vi ol ati on e nabl ed the pol i ce t o el i cit w h en upon ar re sting the y quest i oned hi m . Al eman was ne ve r t r i ed. B ut the s ta te m en t he m ade to the offi cer s w ho quest i oned hi m was used aga i nst14 N o. 10

- 3523 h i m i n a c r i mi n a l p r o c ee di ng

— it w as an ind isp en sa b le g r o un d o fh i s ind i c t men tf o r mur de r, a nd thu s ma de th e vi o l at i o n of M ira nda act i onabl e in a s uitunder s ectio n 19 83
. Sornbe rge r v. C ity of Kno xville, 434 F. 3d 1006 , 10 26- 27 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06) ; se e a l so Stoot v. City of E veret t, 58 2 F.3d 910 , 92 5 ( 9 t h Cir. 2009); H igazy v. Te m pl e t on , 50 5 F
. 3d 161, 173 (2d C ir. 2007). Th e r e i s mo r e tha twa s wr o ngwi th the i nt e r ro gati o n th an a vi o l at i o n of M iranda

. M i r anda h as be en sa id to dist ra ct j ud ges fro m the propri etyo fthe i nter ro gat ion th at fo llow s a w aiver of M i r anda ri gh ts. See W il li am J
. St u n tz , The C o lla pse o

f A m erica n C rim ina l Justice 235 (2011 ). T his case i s an ill us tr ation. M icci ind uc ed A lem an ’s “co nfe ssi on ” b y l yi ng to hi m abo ut the m edi calr epor ts. The l i es c o nv i nc ed Alem an thathe mustha ve b ee n the cause ofJ oshua’ s s haken-baby syndrom e be cause, accor ding to M i cci, th e d octor s had excl ud ed any othe r p os sib ility . (Th ey h ad n ot .) Th e k ey s ta te m en t in A l em an’ s “ confe ss ion” w as that “i fthe onl y way t o cause [ the inj uri es] i s t o shake that bab y, then, wh en Isho ok tha tb a b y, Ih ur ttha tb a b y . ” Th e cruc i a l wo r d i s “ i f

. ” By lyi ng abou t the m ed ical rep orts, M icci ch an ged “if” to “ bec au se” an d th ereby fo r ce d o n Al eman a prem i se th at led i nexor abl y t o the c oncl usi on that he m us t ha ve b ee n r es po ns ibl e f o r J o sh ua ’ s dea th ; the l i e i fb el i ev ed f o r ec l o se d a ny o th erc o nc l us i o n. Co u r t s h a v e b e e n r e l u c t a n t t o d e e m t r i c k e r y b y t he po l i c e a b a s i s f o r e x c l u d i n ga c o n fe s s i o n o n th e g r o und th atth e tr i ck s m ade the c o nfes si o n c o er ce d a nd thus i nvol untary
. S ee Frazi e r v. C upp , 394 U
. S. 731, 739 (1969 );N o. 10

- 3523 15 H olland v. M cGinnis , 963 F.2d 104 4, 1050 -52 (7th C ir. 1992); U nited Sta tes v. Vela s quez , 885 F.2d 107 6, 1088 -89 (3d C ir. 1 9 89 ); Statev. Kele kolio , 849 P. 2d 58, 71- 74 ( H aw . 199 3). In U ni t e d S t at e s v. Rut l e dge, 90 0 F
. 2d 1127, 1 13 0-31 ( 7th Cir
. 19 90) , a pol i ce o ffi cer ’ s s tat em ent t o a s uspect co uld be inter prete d as pr om i si ng “a netb en efi t f r o m s pi l l i ng th e b ea n s,” an d w e s aid th at “ i fth is w as th e p ro m ise , i t i s unl i k ely tha t th e o ffi ce r i nt end ed t o k ee p i t; a nd i fhe did not, then the s tat em ent was fra ud ule n t. Bu t i t was the s or t o fm i norfra ud thatthe case s a l l ow. Farfro m m ak i ngthe p o l i c e a fi du c i a r y o fthe s us pe c t, the l aw perm i ts the pol i ce to press ure and caj ol e, concealm ate ri al f acts, a nd act i vel y m i sl ead

— al l up to l i m i ts not exceeded here ” ( em phasi s in or i gi nal )
. The co nfe ssi on m u st be ex cl ude d o nl y “ i fthe gove r nm en t fee ds th e defen dan t f al se i nfo rm ati on that s eriousl y di sto rt s hi s cho i ce, [ f or ex am ple ] by prom i si ng hi m that i f he confess es h e w ill be s et f re e”

— i n other w or ds, o nl y i f“the f al se sta tem ent dest royed the i nfo rm ati on that he re quir ed f or a r ati onalchoi ce. ” Id

. at11 29- 30. I n thi s ca se a f al se s ta te m en t di d de str o y the i nf o r mat i o n r e qu i r e d f o r a r a t i o na l c ho i c e . No t b ei ng a m edi calexp er t, A l em an co uld notco ntra dictwh at w as re prese nted to hi m as se ttl ed m ed i calo pini on. H e had shake n J os hua, albei t g entl y; but i fm edi calo pini on ex cl ude d a ny o ther po ss ibl e ca us e o fthe c hi l d’ s dea th, th en, g en tl e as the s ha kingwas , a nd i nno ce nt l y i ntended, i t m usthave bee n the cause o f d eath. A l em an had no r ati onalbas i s, gi ven hi s i gnor ance of m edi cal sci ence, to deny that he had to have been the c ause.16 N o. 10

- 3523 The questi on o fco er ci on i s s epara te fro m thato fr el i ab ility . A co er c ed co n fes sio n is in ad m iss ible (an d th is a p a r tfr o m M i r anda ) ev en if am p ly a n d c o n vin c in gly c or ro b or at ed

. Roge rs v. Ri ch m ond, 36 5 U
. S. 53 4, 54 0- 41 ( 1 9 6 1); Johns on v. Tr igg, 2 8 F
. 3d 63 9, 6 41 ( 7th Ci r . 1 994); Parke r v. A llen , 5 65 F
. 3d 12 58 , 1 28 0 ( 11 thCi r . 2 00 9)
. But a tr i cktha t i s as l i k ely t o i nduc e a f al se a s a tr ue confes sio n re nd er s a co nfe ssi on i nadm i ssibl e be cause of i ts unrel i abi l i ty eve n i fi ts vol unta rin es s i s co nceded. Se e, e.g ., Johns on v. Tr igg, sup ra , 28 F. 3d at 641. I fa q u es ti on ha s only tw o a ns w ers

—A a nd B

— and you t el l the re sp ond ent that the answer i s no t A , an d h e h as n o b as is f o r do ubt i ngy o u, the n h e i s com p ell ed byl o g i c to “ co nfess ” that the answer i s B
. That w as the vi se th e p olic e p laced Alem an i n. They t ol d him the onl y possib le c a us e o fJ o s hu a ’ s i nj ur i e s wa s tha th e ’ d b e e n s ha ken r i g htb efo r e he c o l l aps ed; no t be i nga n e xpe r t i n s ha k en baby syndro m e, A l em an co uld notdeny th e o ffi cer s’ f al se r epr es en ta ti o n o fmedi ca l o pi ni o n. And s i nc e he w as t h e o nl y per son to have shake n J oshua i m m edi ate ly bef or e J oshua’ s coll apse, i t was a l ogi calnece ssi ty that h e h a d b e en res p on sib le for th e c h ild ’s d ea th . Q.E .D . A confess i on s o i nd u c ed is w or thl ess as ev i dence, and as a pre m i se f oran a rr est
. Crowev. County of Sa n Diego , 60 8 F.3 d 40 6, 43 3 (9 th C ir. 20 10 ); Wilk ins v . D eR eyes , 528 F. 3d 790, 800-01 (10th Cir. 2008). W e tu r n fi na l l y to th e ch ar g e o f m al i ci o us pr o se cut i o n, gov er ned by I llin ois l aw as expounded i n such cas es as Swi ckv. Li aut aud, 66 2 N .E .2d 12 38 , 124 2 (Ill. 19 96 ); Port e rv. City of Chi cago , 912 N
. E
. 2d 1262, 1265 (I ll. A p p . 2009),N o. 10

- 3523 17

a nd G onz alez v. City of E lgin , 57 8 F .3d 52 6, 54 1- 42 ( 7th C ir. 2009). V i l l a n u ev a c an n otbe sa id to h av e la c ke d p ro b ab le cau se i n p rep aring th e ch arge of aggravated battery m er ely b ec au se he b as ed th e ch ar g e i n pa r t o n the wor th

l ess “co nfe ssi on” that he and M i cci( the l att erthe l ead i nterro gat or ) had extr acte d fr om A l em an. There was suffi ci ent o therev i dence atthi s e ar l y point i n the i nvestig at ion to ch ar ge ag gr av at ed ba tt er y. A n d Il lin ois l aw r equi re s t o show m al i ci ous pr ose cution pro ofnot onl y o fl ack ofpro babl e ca use but al so of“m al i ce, ” which m ea n s in th is c on te x t t h at th e o ffic e r w h o in itiate d the pro secuti on had “a ny m oti ve o th erthan that of bringi ng a gui l ty partyto j usti ce. ” Carb augh v. Pe at, 18 9 N. E. 2 d 1 4 , 1 9 ( I l l

. App
. 1 9 6 3 ) ; s e e a l so R o dg ers v. P eop les Ga s, Light& CokeCo. , 7 3 3 N. E. 2 d 8 3 5 , 8 4 2 ( I l l

. App
. 20 00 ); M a ckv . F i rs tSe cu r i ty Bank, 51 1 N
. E.2 d 714, 71 7 (Ill. A p p . 198 7); R o bi n son v. Eco n-O -Co rporati on, Inc. , 37 9 N .E .2d 92 3, 92 5 (Ill. A p p . 197 8). R o dgers a nd M ackp er m it an i nfe re nce o fm al i ce t o be dr aw n fro m an ab se nce ofpro babl e ca use. But the eve nts th at dem ol i shed probabl e ca use t o charg e Ale m an

— Bo o k er ’ s ques ti o ni ng ofDanie l l e S chrik and the pathol ogi st’ s s tat em ent that i t was hi ghl y unl i kel y that Jo shua’ s hem ato m a had been cau sed by s om eth ing th at ha p p en ed on Sep tem ber 9 ra therthan ear l i er

— too k pl ace after V ill anueva s ubm i tte d the char ge ofbat ter y. Only Carl son i s char ged wit h m al i ci ous pr ose cuti on ofthe m urder charg e, f orwh i ch pro babl e ca use had evapor ate d. A r eas onabl e j ury coul d find thatCarl son18 N o. 10

- 3523 by th is point th ou gh t Joshu a’s m oth er prob ably the m urd erer a nd was t r y i ngt o pr o te cthe r b y thr o wi ngthe m antl e o fgui l t o n A l em an, o r at l eas t that he w anted to spa r e he r the a nxi ety o fb einga sus p ect an d, no t i nc i den

ta l l y, g et i n he r g o o d g r ac es by do i ng so , byterm inat i ng the invest i gat i on o fher a n d p i nning the m urder on Al e man . ( I fy o u wa ntt o e xo ne r a t e one s us pe c t, i th e l ps to ha ve a nothe r . ) S uchmot i ve s co ul d no t be tho ug ht p rop er. W e ca nn o t fi nd a ny e vi den ce o fmis co nduc t o n the p ar t o f O ffice r Fa llon (an ot h er d efe n d an t), w h o p ar tic ipated i n the ar re st ofA l em an f orm u rd erpursuant to th e war r an t ba se d o n Ca r l so n’ s r epr es en ta ti o ns ; no th i ng i n the wa r r a ntwo ul d h a v e ale rt e d F a l l o n t o i t s i nv a l i di ty. N or can w e fi nd evi dence of m i sco nd uct b y L u ssky; the first ar re st

— the o nl y a ct Ale m an chal l enges i n w hi ch she par ti ci pated

— w as supp or ted bypro babl e ca use. I n s u mma r y, w e a ffi r m th e di s mi s s a l o fa l l c l a i ms aga i nst Lussky, Fal l on, and the Vil l age ; the fi rs t f al sear re st cla im ; an d th e m alic iou s p ro se c u tio n cla im ag ains t Vi l l anue va . Butwe r ev er se the di smi ss alo fthe cl ai m o funl awfuli nt er r o g at i o n a g ains t M i cc i a nd Vil l anueva, o fthe seco nd f al se- ar re st cl ai m ag ain st Car l so n, a nd ofth e cl ai m a g ains t Car l so n o fmal i ci o us pros ecuti on f orm urder, and we re m and the ca se f or fur th erpr o ce eding s co ns i st en t wi ththi s o pi ni o n.

A FF I R MED I N P ART, R EV ER S ED I N P ART, an d R EMAND ED .
11- 21- 11