## 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. 07

- 1928 L O RRIB I EL ANS KI, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v . C OUN TY OF K ANE, I l l i noi s, K ANE C OUN TYC HIL D A DVOCAC Y C ENTE R, K ANE C OUN TYC HIL D A DVOCAC YA D V ISORYB O ARD , et a l., 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 . 05 C7291

—Jam es B. Z agel, Judg e.
A RGUED A PRIL 4, 2008

— D ECIDED D ECE MBE R 18, 2008

Befo re P OSNER, K ANN E a nd R OV NER, C ircu it Judges . R OV NER, Cir cu i tJudg e . L or riBi el anski, atthe age o f fi fteen, w as falsel y accu sed of sex ua ll y abu sing a six-yearo l d ne i g hb or. E ve nt ua l l y a cqui tt ed o fa l l c ha r g es , s he sued a num bero fpublic offi ci al s a nd enti ti es f orvi ol ati ng herco nsti tuti onalr i ghts du ri ng the i nvest i gat i on2 N o. 07

- 1928

an d prose cu tion of th e all eged crim e . Th e d istri ct cou rt d i s mi s s e d h e r c o mp l a i n ti n i t s e n t i r e t y . We a ffi r m.

I. On revi ew o fthis d i sm i ssa l under F edera l Rule o f Civi l Pro cedure 12( b) ( 6) , we accept as tr ue al l well

- ple aded facts , and, drawing al l i nfe re nces i n f avo r ofBi el anski, we r ev i e w deno vo w h et h er th e c om p lain t s ta te s a cla im for w h ich relie f ca n be gra n te d

. Chic ago D i s t
. Counc i l of C arpent ers Wel

fa re Fund v. Ca re m ark, Inc. , 474 F
. 3d 463, 47 1 (7t h C ir. 20 07 ); B a k er v. K ing sley, 38 7 F
. 3d 649, 66 0 ( 7th C ir. 20 04 ); M arshall -M osby v. Corporate R ec ei vables, Inc. , 20 5 F. 3d 323, 32 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00)

. Our r eci tat i on o fthe f acts com es, therefo re , fro m Bi el anski ’ s S eco nd A m ended Compl aint
. W e be g i n b y i den ti fy i ngthe de f en dants. T he Kane Co unty Chi l d Advo ca cyCe nt er( “Ce nt er ”) a nd the K ane County Ch i l d A dvocacy A dvis or y Boa rd ( “Boar d”) ar e bot h leg isla tiv ely c re at ed e n tit ies
. See 55 I LC S 80/3, 80/4. The Centerwa s c re ate d to coo rdi nate the invest i gati on, pro secuti on, and tr eat m ent refe rral ofchi l d sexual ab u se . T h e C en te r is s ta ffed by p ro se c u to rs , po lice inv es tigat or s, i nvest i gat or s fro m the Il l i noi s Depart m ent o f Ch i l dren and Fa m i l y Se rv i ces ( “DC FS ”) , and case m anager s. The Bo ar d i s co m po se d o fv ar i o us g o ve r nm en t offi ci al s fro m Kane County, i ncl ud i ng r epres entat i ves o fthe ment alhe al th d epa r tment, the s he r i ff’ s o ffi ce , the st at es a t t o r n ey ’s o ffice , an d D C FS . Th e B oa rd is re sponsibl e f ordrafti ng policies and procedure s f or in ve st iga tin g a n d p r o s e c u tin g p er so n s a c c u se d of ch ild se xual abus e. I n a ddi ti o n t o s ui ngthe Ce nt era nd the B o a r d , Bi el an s k i a l s o s u e d th e C o u n t y o fKa n e , a n d t woN o. 07

- 1928 3 perso ns, bo th i nd i viduall y a nd i n thei r offi ci alcapaci ti es. K athr yn Byr ne was a DCFS c hi l d prote cti on i nves tig ator ass i gned to the Center, and Davi d Berg w as a pol i ce o fficer a ss i g ne d t o b o ththe Co unty o fKane a nd the C en te r. B y r n e a n d B er g w er e b ot h tra in ed atth e C h ild A d vo c ac y N at ion al T ra in in g P ro gr am (“C A N T P ”) in techni ques f ori nter vi ew i ng the ch ild vict i m s o fse xual abuse. On Augu st1 7, 2 00 1, By r ne a nd Be r gi nt er vi ewe d a s i xyea r- ol d boy n am ed “Brent” and hi s par ents about an alle ga tio n th at h e h ad be en se x u ally ab u se d . B re n t t old Byrne and Berg that som eone nam ed Lorr i had sexual l y abused hi m . The spel l in g ofLor ri ’ s nam e was pr ovide d by the a dul ts i nv o l ve d i n the c as e, i nt er pr et i ng th e ch il d ’s ph one tic exp ression of the n am e. T he i nt ervi ew l ast ed les s than an hourand f ai l ed to co nfo rm to the fo re nsi c p ro toc oltaught at CA N TP. The two i nvest i gator s f ai l ed to vi deo- o r audio tape the i nter vi ew . They f a i l e d t o a s s e s s Br e nt ’ s c o mpe t e nc y t o t e s t i fy , a nd the y negl ecte d to eval uate the a ccurac y o fhi s m em or y. They di d no t as se ss whethe r he ha d f ab r i ca te d the a l l eg at i o ns o r h a d b e e n c o a c he d. T he y d i d n o tc o nd uc ta de v e l o pm en talas ses sm ent o fBrent, di d not i nvest i gat e whether he ha d b ee n pre vi o us l y i nt er vi ewe d (a nd i fso , how m an y ti m es ) , di d no t pur su e an y o th er po ss ible e xpl an at i o ns for th e alleg at ion s, an d d id n otsp ea k t o a n y ot h er sign ificant ind i vi du al s i n Bren t’s li f e. They di d not e val uate th e ext en t of his d iagnosis of A tten tion D e ficit H yp erac tiv ity D iso rd er (“A D H D ”) o r h ow th at d iag n os is m igh t a ffec t h is t e s tim on y, an d th ey d id n ot ex p lore h is m otives. T he y i nt erview ed the p aren ts p riorto i nt ervi ew i ng the chi l d, contr ar y t o accepte d foren si c pra cti ce.4 N o. 07

- 1928 They di d not e m plo y a ny ac cepted p ro cedure to i denti fy th e per petra toro fthe al l ege d sexual abuse , such as photog ra phs or d ra w i ngs. They di d not a sk Brent to des cr ibe the phy si ca l fea tu r es o fthe pe r so n who a s s a u l t e d h i m. Bet wee n Aug us t 17a nd Nov embe r 1 6, 2 00 1, By r ne a nd Berg disc ove re d that, pri ort o the inter vi ew , Brentwas tak i ng m ed i cati on f orA DH D and had bee n ass i gned to a s peci aleducati on cl ass . They l ear ned that h e was a d ifficu lt c h ild for h is p a r e n t s t o c on tr ol an d d isc ip lin e. In th e sum m er of 2001 , Bren t h ad a tten d ed a d ay cam p w he re he r emov ed hi s clothi nga nd a tt empte d t o r emov e th e clothing of othe r children

. I n July of th at sam e sum m er, a r el at i ve ha d c o m pl aine d t o Br en t’ s par en ts tha t B re nt had atte m pted to for ce hi s co usi ns to undress i n the back yar d ofBrent ’ s ho m e. I n the w eek s b efore the Au gust 17 i nt e r v i e w, B r e n t ’ s p a r e n t s a n g r i l y c o n f r o n t e d h i m ab o ut the day cam p and back ya rd inci dents, and pun i shed hi m and questi oned hi m exte nsi vel y ab out the inci dents. Du ri ng the i r questi oni ng, Brent ’ s par ents sugge ste d to h i m th a tp e r h a p s s o meo n e h a d s e x u a l l y ab u s e d h i m. A l though B yr ne and Bergknew al l o fthi s i nfo rm ati on, they m ade none ofi t a vai l able t o B i el anskiev en tho ugh i t was m ate ri alto the val i dity a nd r el i abi l i ty ofBrent ’ s charge a g a i n s tL o r r i a tth e Au g u s t1 7i n t e r v i e w. On ly six days afterthe i nter vi ew , o n A ugust 2 3, 20 01, B iela n sk i rec eiv ed n ot ifica tio n from D C FS th at cr ed ible evi dence exi ste d that s he had com m i tte d acts of s exual penetr ati on a n d sexual m ol est ati on upon Brent. DC FS l abel ed her the “i nd i cate d perpetr ato r. ” On N ove m ber16 , 2001 , the K ane County St ate ’ s Attor ney filed a Peti ti onN o. 07

- 1928 5

Bielans ki’ s parents are not nam ed a s plaint iff s and the ref ore 1 t he am ounts the y e xpe nded de f en di ng the i r daught er m ay not b e reco v ered in this su it. f orA dj ud i cati on o fW ar dship ( “Petition”), al l egi ng tha t Bi e l a ns k i c o mm i t t e d the Cl a s s X fe l o nyo fa g g r a vate d cri m i nal se xu alas saul t a nd the Clas s 2 fel ony ofag gr avate d cri m i nal se xual abuse by com m i tti ng an act of fell ati o up on Bre nt and by pla ci ng herse xual or gan o n th e s ex u al or ga n of B re n t for th e pu rp os e o f se x u al g ra tific at ion or a ro u s a l o fth e v ict im or th e a c c u se d . A s a res u lt of the Pet iti on, Bielansk i w as com p ell ed to atten d nu m erous c ourthear i ngs, o rder ed to subm i t t o an i nter vi ew by a pr o ba ti o n o ffi ce r, a nd pl ac ed o n pr et r i alr es tr i ct i o ns wh i c h l i mi t e d h e r fr e e d o m. The m att ercam e t o tr i ali n ear l y 2003. Duri ng the pro secuti on’ s ca se- i n-c hi ef, Bren t coul d not i denti fy Bi el anski i n cour t, ev en afterthe j u d ge d ire cted Bre nt to l oo k a t Bi e l a n s k i a n d a s k e d h i m i f h e k n e w wh o s h e wa s. The court g ra nted a defense m oti on f ora dir ecte d find i ng o f “n o t g ui l ty
. ” Bi el an sk i the n a sk ed D CFSt o e xpung e th e c h a r g e s against her from the age nc y’s record s. A fter a he a r i ngb e f o r e a n a dmi ni s t r a t i v e l a w j ud g e , the di r e c t or of DC FS or dered that the re cor d b e expun ged . B i el anski m ain tai ned her i nnocence thro ughout the pro ceedi ngs and her parents expended co nsid er abl e r eso urces r eta i n i n g c ou n se l an d h irin g in ve st iga to rs an d a for en sic ex p ert to de fend her. 1 Bi e l a ns k i fi l e d a thr e e - c o un tc o mpl a i ntu nd e r 4 2 U. S

. C. § 19 83 ( he r ea fter “S ec ti o n 1 98 3" ) , a g ains t th e Cen te r, the6 N o. 07

- 1928 Board, the County ofKane , B yr ne, and Berg

. Count I al l ege d that the defendants vi ol ate d Biel anski ’ s r i ghts und erthe Four th A m endm ent b y com pel l i ng herto att end num er ous c ou rthear i ngs a nd r est ri cti ng her f re e do m whe n the r e wa s n o p r o b a b l e c a us e t o char ge her w i th two fel oni es. Count Iso ught dam age s a gai nst al l o fthe de f en dan ts
. Co untI Iasserte d tha t Byrne a nd Berg ( acti ng i nd i vi du al ly an d i n thei r offi ci alcapaci ti es) vi ol ate d Biel anski ’ s r i ght t o a f ai r tr i al an d d ue pro cess w he n th ey w ithh eld ex cu lpato ry eviden ce from DC FS, th e co ur t, th e pr o se cut o r s, an d de f en se c o uns el

. Acco r di ng to the c om pla i nt, thi s withhol ding ofi nfo rm ati on ca us ed th e cr i m i nal pr o se cut i o n o fBi el an sk i, pr o l o ng ed th e p r o c ee d in gs , an d d ep riv ed h er of a fa ir tr ial. C ou n t II so u gh t d am ag es ag ain st B yr n e a n d B er g in d ivid u ally and i n thei r offi ci alcapaci ti es. C ou nt I I Im ai ntai ned that, beca u se of thei r i nadequ ate pol i ci es, custo m s a nd prac ti ce s, the Co unty , the Ce nt er, a nd the Bo ar d e nabl ed Byrne an d Be r gt o vio l at e Bi el an sk i ’ s r i g ht s. The c o m pl aint f au l te d the Co unty , the Bo ar d, a nd the Ce nter for f ai l i ng to instr uct, s upe r vi se , c o nt r o l, a nd di sc i pl i ne By r ne a nd Ber g, a nd s o ughtda m ag es a g ains t al l th re e o fthe i ns ti tu
ti onaldefendants. The dis tr i ct c ourtgr ante d the defe nd ants’ m oti on t o d ism iss un d er Fed eral Ru le ofCivil Proc e d u re 12(b)( 6). I n a dd iti on t o the f ac ts a l l eg ed i n the c o m pl aint, the d istri ct cou rt assu m ed that t h e o nly p erson i n B rent ’s w or ld n am ed “L or ri” w as h is n eig hb or , L or ri B iel a n sk i. The cour t no ted thatm uch ofthe com pla i nt cha stis ed the a genci es f ornotadop ting a par ti cul arpro toc olf or i nv es ti g at i ngc hi l d abus e ca ses. T he c o ur t f o und tha t th eN o. 07

- 1928 7 C o n s t i t u t i o n d o e s n o tr e q u i r e th e a g e nc i e s t o a d o p ts o me parti cul ar prot oco l, and that the vi ol ati on ofa l oca l pol i cy is not enou gh to m ake ou t a cons titution al cl aim
. Rat he r, th o s e v i o l a t i o n s mi g h tb e c o mpe n s ab l e un d e r s t a t e l a w. The cour t al so re m ar ked that, to the extent Bie l anski soughtdam age s f orthe am ounts expend ed by her parents i n her defense, ther e co uld be no re cove ryb ec au se her pa r e nt s we r e no t pa r t i e s t o the s ui t
. W ha t r em a i ne d, acco rdi ng to the dist ri ct c ourt, wa s a c lai m f oran i l l ega l seizure w ithou t p robab le cau se, a cla im un d er Bradyf or f ai l i ng to di scl ose excul p ato ryi nfo rm ati on, and a M onell cl ai m depend ent upon a fi nd i ng tha t a ny co ns tit u ti onal viol ations by By rne an d Be rg w ere cau s ed by a fai lure o fth e a g e n c i e s t o p r o p e r l y t r a i n o r su pe r v i s e th e s e e mp loy ee s. Se eBr ady v. M aryl and, 373 U .S. 83 (19 63 ); M onell v. D ep’t o

f So c. Servs. of C ity of N ew Yo rk, 43 6 U
. S. 65 8 ( 1978 ). T h e co urt concl ud ed that a s um m ons does not amoun t to a n a r r es t, a nd tha t even if itdi d, By r ne a nd Ber gwoul d b e ent i tl ed to qua l i fi ed i m m uni tyo n the i l l ega l se i zure cl aim . T he co urt dism i sse d the Bradycla im because i t was “e xti ngui shed” b yBi e l a ns k i ’ s a c qu i tta l

. That is, in o rderto m ake o ut a Bradycl ai m , ther e m ust be a re aso nabl e pr obab i l i ty that the withhel d evi dence w ou ld h av e a ffec te d th e o u tc om e o ft h e p ro c ee d in gs if B iela n skihad known itbef or e t ri al

. Because Bie l anski w as acqui tte d, the r eve l ati on of t h e w i thhel d i nfo rm ati on w oul d not hav e chang ed the outco m e. The co urt al so f ound that, i n m ostacqui tta l s, a pla i nti ffwil l be unabl e t o show d am age s unl ess the i nfo rm ati on would have dest ro ye d th e p ro se c u tio n ’s c as e. T h e i n for m at ion w ith h eld he r e, the c o ur t ex pl aine d, woul d no t ha ve de st r o y ed th e8 N o. 07

- 1928

W e agr ee with Bi el ans ki thatthe di s t ri c tc our ti na p pro 2 p riately con stru ed the facts i n f av or of the d efend an ts w he n it assu m ed th a t B ielan ski w as the on ly p erso n n am ed “L or ri” in Brent’ s w orld. O n a m oti on to dis m iss for f ail ure t o st ate a c l ai m , we m us tc ons t ru e t he wel l

- pl ea ded f ac t s i n f avor ofthe p la in tiff. SeeC ar emark, 474 F. 3d at47 1. Bi el ans ki al l eg ed thatthe defe nd ants f ail ed t o pu rs ue alt ernat ive hyp othes es and f ail ed to g ath er infor m atio n re g ard ing sign ifi can t ind iv id u als in Brent ’ s l i f e . Th e c ou r ts ho ul d h a ve c on s t r ue d thi s t o m e an thatthe de fendants f ail ed to i nvesti gate whether there w as ano t he r pers on nam ed “ Lorr i ” ( i nc l udi ng a l t er nat e s pel l i ngs o f t h e c h i l d ’ s p h o n e t i c r e p r e se n t a t i o n o f t h a tn a m e ) i n B r e n t ’s l i f e. Thi s e rr or , ho wever, doe s n otaff ec tthe out c om e ofthe cas e, and so w e will not add res s itfurther. pr o s e c u t i o n ’ s c a s e . T h e c o u r ta l s o p o s i t e d th a tth e de f en dants would have been enti tl ed to qual i fi ed i m m u ni ty on the Bradyc l a i m. Be c a us e th e c l a i ms a g a i ns tthe i nd i v i dual defendants co uld notsur vi ve, the court a l so dism i sse d the M onell cl ai m . Bi el anskiappeal s.

II. O n ap p eal, Bielans ki c o n ten d s tha t the district cou rt er r ed when i t co ns tr ue d th e f ac ts i n f av o r o f th e defe nd ants and i nfe rr ed that ther e was o nl y o ne per son nam ed “Lor ri ” i n Brent’ s worl d. S he al so ar gues that, 2 und erthe “obj ecti vel y rea sonab l e” standar d ofthe Four th A m endm ent, she w as seized w i thout probabl e ca use. Fi nal l y, she m ai nt ain s that heracqui tta l di d not r ender m oo t her cl ai m that she w as denie d he r d u e p roces s r i g h tt o a f a i r t r i a l w h e n th e d e f e n d a n t s w i th h e l d e v i d-N o. 07

- 1928 9

ence that w as excul pator y a nd co uld have bee n used f or i m peachm ent purpos es. T he co urt dism i sse d Bie l anski ’ s com p laint und erRule 12 ( b) ( 6) f orf ai l ure to sta te a cl ai m , and our re vi ew i s there f or e deno vo . M i nc h v

. City of Chi cago , 486 F.3d 294 , 300 (7th C ir. 2007).

A. W e be gi n w i th Bi el anski ’ s cl ai m und er Se cti on 1983 that sh e w as im p ro p er ly se ize d w ith ou t p ro b ab le c au se , in vi ol ati on of the Four th A m endm ent. I n h er co m pla i nt, she e xplai ns: P l a i n t i ffw a s c o mp e l l e d b y p r o c e s s t o a t t e n d n u mer ous c ourthear i ngs, o rder ed to be i nter vi ew ed by a proba ti on o ffi cer, and w as pla ced on pr etr i alr est ri ct i o n s w h i c h l i mi t e d h e r fr e e d o m. S ec o nd Am en ded Compl aint( Compl aint ”) , at¶ 1 8( C)

. S he di d n o t d e s c r ib e i n th e C o mpl a i n t th e n a t u r e o ft he pr et r i alre st r i ct i o ns . I n the di st r i ctco ur t, i n r es po ns e to the defend an ts ’ mot i o n t o di smi ss , s he e xpl aine d tha t th e “se i zure ” was the i ni ti ati on of the pros ecuti on, eff ecte d by a s um m ons i ssued by the pros ecuto r, witho ut pro bab le ca us e. S he di d no t na m e an y o th er p re - tr i alr es tr i ct i o ns i n r es po ns e to th e m o ti o n to di smi ss . On appe al, s he add s that the p re tr i alrest ri cti ons consi ste d ofan o rdernot to l ea ve I l l i no i s wi th o utthe pe r m i ss i on of the co ur t. S he al so expla i ns on appeal thatthe i nter vi ew with the pro bati on o ffice r w as part ofthe sei zure . A l though s he di d not ar g ue the se l at te r tw o p oin ts i n the di st r i ctc o ur t, the defe nd ants have not cl ai m ed w ai verand ha ve answered10 N o. 07

- 1928 thos e add i ti onalp oi nts i n thei r bri ef s and ato ra lar gum ent. O n ap p ea l, B iela n sk i co n c ed es sh e w as n ot arr e st ed in th e t r a d i t i o na l se n s e o fth e w o r d b u ti n s t e a d w a s c o mpel l ed by a s um m ons to appear in court. S he al so ass er ts th at, und er the sta tu te creatin g the Boa rd and the C en ter, th e i n vest igative fun ctions of th e po li ce d ep artm en t w ere m erged w ith th e pros ecu torialfun ctions of t h e state’s at to r ne y ’ s o ffi ce , whi ch m ade th e ch ar g i ng dec i si o n. B ec a u s e of th is m er gin g of fu n c tio n s, sh e a rg u es th at it i s no t f atalto herc laim thatthe pros ecuto r w ho ca used th e su m m o ns to b e i ss ue d i s no t na m ed as a de f en dan t here

. I n or d er t o m ake o ut a cl ai m under S ecti on 1 983 f oran un r e a s o nab l e s e i z ur e i n v i o l a t i o n o fthe F o ur th Am e nd

m en t, a pl aint i ffm us t a l l eg e, o fc o ur se , tha t th e defen d an ts’ c o n d u c t con stitut ed a seizure, an d that the seizu re w as u n re as on ab le. Bel ch e rv. Nor t on , 497 F. 3d 742, 74 7 ( 7th C ir. 2007). W e ne ed not con side r w he th er the seizu re here w as re aso nabl e be cause our anal ysi s be gi ns and ends with the fi rs t com ponent o fthi s f or m ula ti on: Bi el anskiwas not se i zed as tha t te r m i s unde r st o o d i n F o ur thAm en dm en t a n a l y s i s . A s e i z u r e o fa p e r s o n i s g e n e r a l l y de fi n e d i n t e r ms of a n i nt e nt i o na l l i mi t a t i o n o f a pe r s o n’ s f r e e do m of m ov em en t. SeeCo unty of Sacram ent o v. Lewis , 52 3 U.S

. 83 3, 843- 44 ( 1998 ) ( a Four th A m endm ent sei zure occur s w h en th er e i s g o v e rn me n t a lt e r m i na ti o n o ffr ee do m o fmove m en t b y m ea n s in te n tio n ally ap p lied ); C a l i f o r n i a v . Ho d a r iD. , 49 9 U
. S. 62 1, 62 5- 26 ( 1991 ) ( a s ei zure o fthe perso n m ay be achi eved b y the m er e g ra spi ng o r appli cati on o fphysi cal for c e w ith la w fu l a u th or ity , w h et h er o r n ot it su c c ee d ed in subdu i ng the per son ar rest ed ; o r, i n the abse nce o fN o. 07

- 1928 11 p hy sical f orce, by subm iss io n to a show of au th ority) ; B elch er, 49 7 F
. 3d at 748 ( a per son i s s ei zed f orFou rth A m endm ent pu rpos es w hen, fro m al l o fthe ci rcum sta nces su r r o undi ng th e i nc i den t, a r ea so nabl e per so n i n the si tuati on would be l i eve he o r she was notfre e t o l eave ; to dem onst ra te se izure , i nd i vi du al s m ust s how thatthey w er e t ouched by the p olic e o r that they yi el ded to a show ofauthori ty, and the gov er nm entalte rm i nati on o f freedo m of m ovem en t m us t be inten tional). B iela n s k i argu es th at, und er A lbrig ht v . O liv er, 510 U

. S. 266 ( 1994 ) , a cl ai m f orar re st w i thout probabl e ca use m us t be an al y ze d unde r F o ur th Am en dm ent j uri spr uden ce . W e ha ve no qu ar r elwi ththa t g en er alpr o po si ti o n, bu t B iel an ski conc ed es sh e w as n o t arrested as tha t term i s co m m onl y unders too d. Rather, she conte nd s that, be ca us e o fthe uni que way the Cent ero per at es ( byc o m bi ni ng pol i ce a nd pro secuto ri alfuncti ons i nto one or gan izati o n) , the c o nduc t o fthe Ce nt eri n c ha r g i nghe r a nd causi ng a sum m ons to be i ssued vi ol ate d h er ri ght t o be f re e o far re st w i thou t p robabl e ca use. S he expl ai ns that th e Bo ar d a nd the Ce nt erb l ur r ed th e arrest ro l e an d the pr o s e c ut i o n r o l e t o s uc h a de g r e e tha t, f o r F o ur th Am e nd

m en t pur po se s, a r r es t an d pr o se cut i on are o ne a nd the s am e i n her cas e. A ll o fthi s be gs the quest i on o f w he th er she w as “seized ” for F o u r t h A m en d m en t pu rpo se s, that is, whethe r the r e was a n i nt en ti o na l g o ve r nm entalte rm i nati on o fherfre edom o fm ove m ent. B iela n s k i relie s o n Ju st ice G in sb u rg ’s c on c u rre n c e in Alb r ightfor t h e p ro p os itio n th at a p er so n w h o is o bl i g at ed to a ppea r f o r t r i ali s “s ei ze d” f o r t r i al“ when th e12 N o. 07

- 1928
st at e empl o y s th e l es s str o ng - ar m mean s o fa s um m o ns i n l i eu of ar re st to secur e hi s prese nce i n co urt. ” Alb r ight, 51 0 U .S. at 2 79
. J u st ice G in sb u rg rais ed th is iss u e in th e co nt ex t o fa de f en dan t who ha d b ee n a r r es te d a nd th en rele as ed p re -tr ial, ex p lain in g t h at su c h a p e r so n “is sc ar c ely a t lib er ty ; he rem ain s a p p re h en d ed , arre st ed in h is m ov em en ts , in d e e d ‘se ize d ’ for t ria l, so lon g a s h e is b ou n d to ap p ea r in c ou rt an d an sw er th e s ta te ’s c h ar ge s.” 5 1 0 U. S

. a t 2 7 9
. J us t i c e Gi ns b ur g ur g e d the Co ur tt o a do pt thi s co ncept o fa con tin u ing s ei zure to hol d a pol i ce offi cerl i abl e f orthe harm suff er ed by the defendant not o nl y whenhe was a r r es te d wi th o utpr o babl e ca us e, b ut w hen he w as h ai l ed i nto cour t be cause the o ffi certhen gave m i sl ea d in g t es tim on y a t t h e p re lim in ar y h ea ring
. That te st i m o ny, Ju sti ce Gi ns bur gr emar k ed, mai nt aine d a nd re i nf o r c e d the u nl a wfulh a i l i ngo fthe de f e nd a nti nt o co ur t, i n h erv i ew pe r petua tinga F o ur thAm endm en t vio lat ion p as t t h e in itia l se izu re . Id

. N o oth er S up re m e Cour t j usti ce has adopted J usti ce Gi ns bur g ’ s an al y si s, a nd we ha ve r epe at edl y r ej ec te d the co nc epto fa c o nt i nui ngs ei zu r e i n th e F o ur thAm en dm en t c on te x t. Se eWal l ac ev. Ci ty of Chi cago , 440 F. 3d 421, 429 ( 7th Cir. 2 006) ( decl i ni ng to r eco gni ze a s tand-a l one f al se c o nfe s s i o n c l a i m ba s e d o n a c onti nui ngF o ur th Am e nd

m en t v iola tio n th e o r y); Wi l ey v . Ci ty of Chi cago , 36 1 F

. 3d 99 4, 9 98 ( 7th C ir. 2 00 4) ( r ej ec tinga c l ai m f o r wro ng ful pr o se cut i o n unde r a F o ur th Am en dm en t co nt i nui ng seizur e appr o ac h)

. W e r epe at ed i n Wallacea nd Wi ley our w el l

- set tl ed rul e that “ the in te re st i n not bei ng pro secuted grou n d l ess l y i s no t a n i nter estthatthe Four th A m endm ent pr ote cts. ” Wallace, 440 F.3d at42 5; Wiley, 36 1N o. 07

- 1928 13 F. 3d at 998 ( both ci ti ng G auger v. Hendle, 349 F. 3d 354, 36 1 (7t h C ir. 20 03 ), ove r r ul e d in par tby Wal l ac ev. Ci ty of Chi cago , 440 F. 3d 421 ( 7th Ci r. 200 6) )

. Yet a cl ai m f orpro secuti on w i thout probabl e ca use i s e xactl y t h e ty p e o fcl ai m that Bi e l a ns k i pr e s s e s . Ty pi c a l l y , the s c o pe o fa F o ur th Am e nd

m ent cl ai m i s l i m i ted up t o the poi n t o f arr ai gnm ent, at w h ich p oin t t h e p ro se c u tio n i s u n d er w ay . Wallace, 44 0 F.3 d at42 5; Wiley, 361 F.3d at99 8. I ft h e p ro se c u tio n is th en de em ed m ali cious, it “is not a cons titution al tort unl es s the st at e pr o vi des no r emedy f o r mal i ci o us pr o se cuti on. ” Wiley, 36 1 F.3d a t 998 ( quoti ng G a ug er, 34 9 F
. 3d at 359)

. A s Bi el anski ’ s co unsel c onced ed at or alar gum ent, I l l i noi s pro vi des a re m edy f orm al i ci ous pr ose cuti on a n d th e p l a i n t i ffc h o s e n o tt o b r i n gs u c h a c l a i m. Bi el an sk i ur g es us to f i nd, no ne th el es s, tha t th e su m m o ns r equiring he r t o a ppea r i n c o ur t, a n i nt er vi ew wi tha proba ti on o ffi cer, and a c ourto rd er requi ri ng herto se ek the per m i ssi on o fthe cour t be f or e l eavi n g the st ate am ounted to a seiz ure und erthe Four th A m endm ent. Befo re the S up r e me Co ur tde c i de d Alb r ight, we ex press ed doubt thata re quir em ent t o appear in cour t i s a suf fi ci ent depri vati on o fl iber ty to w arrant the el evat i on o fm alic iou s p ro se c u tio n to a c on st itu tio n al t or t. M ahon ey v. Kesery, 97 6 F

. 2d 1054 , 10 60 ( 7th Ci r. 19 92 ). W e noted that a co urt appearance i s “ l ess dram ati c, l ess tr aum ati c, th anb eingar r es te d, orbo o k ed, the fi r stus ua l l y i nv o l vi ng b e i ngs e a r c he d a nd h a nd c uff e d, the s e c o nd b e in gs e a r c he d, fi ngerp rint ed, and photog ra phed

. ” M a ho ney, 97 6 F

. 2d at 10 60

. But s e eM cCul l ah v

. G a dert, 34 4 F
. 3d 655, 66 1 ( 7th Cir . 2 003) ( re ser vi ng the questi on o fwh ethera perso n w as se ize d by a sum m ons w hen he was ta ken into cu stod y w he n h e com p li ed w ith th e sum m ons ).14 N o. 07

- 1928 Other ci rcui ts have add re sse d w hethera sum m ons, alo n e o r inco m b in at ion w ith p r e-t ria l res tr ict ion s, co n st itu te s a se izu re , a n d th e a n sw er va rie s, d ep en d in g la rg ely on the se ver i ty ofthe re str i ctio n s on fr eedom o fm ove m en t. The Tenth Ci rcui t decl i ned to re cogni ze a F ourth A m en d m en t claim b as ed on a gro u n d les s ch ar gi n g d ec isi on “ abse nt a signi fi cant re str i cti on o n l iber ty. ” Bec ke rv. K roll, 49 4 F
. 3d 904, 91 5- 16 ( 10th C i r. 20 07)

. Becke r w as a physi ci an subj ecte d to a ba sel ess i nvest i gat i on and prose

c ut i o n f o r Med i c a i d f r a ud

. He r r e c o r ds we r e s ub po e na e d, an d she was thr ea te ne d wi thc r i m i na l pr o se cut i o n i fs he f ai l ed to pay a r equeste d sett l em ent, ev en t hough an i nd ependent re vi ew of her re cor ds dem onst ra ted that she had not e ngage d i n any w ro ngdoi ng. W hen Becker re fused to se ttle , the sta te fi rs t fi l ed a c i vi l sui t a gai nst her and then p ursued cri m i nal charge s. S he was subj ecte d to a pr el i m i na r y he ar i nga nd w as bo und o ve r f o r t r i al, b ut w as nevertaken i nto custody. T he civ i l and cr i m i nal cas es w er e d i sm i sse d but Beckerwas then s ubj ecte d to an adm i ni str ati ve proce edi ng tha t r esul ted i n a fin d in g that she had notenga ge d in fr aud. Because Beck erneve r w as r equi r ed to po stb o nd o r a ppea r i n c o ur t, a nd a l l eg ed no specific restr i cti ons on herfre edom o fm ove m ent ( such as tr avel re str i cti ons) , the cour t f ound that she w as n ot se ize d for Fo u rt h A m en d m en t p u rp os es . B eck er, 49 4 F
. 3d at 91 5-1 6. See a lso K i n g s l a n d v . C i tyo f Mi a mi, 382 F. 3d 1220 , 1235

- 36 ( 11th Cir

. 20 04) ( fi nd i ng no seiz ure f orFo urth A men dme nt pu r po s e s whe n pl a i nt i ff wa s r e qu i r e d t o post $100 0 bo nd , appear at h erar ra i gnm ent, and tr avel tw ice fro m N e w Jers ey to Flor id a t o d efe n d h er se lf in c ou rt ); Kara m v. Ci ty of Bur b ank, 352 F. 3d 1188 , 11 93- 94 ( 9thN o. 07

- 1928 15 Cir

. 20 03) ( re quir ed si gni ng o f“o w n re cogni zance” ag re em ent w hi ch obl i gat ed w om an f al sel y accused ofa m i sdem eanorto o btai n c ou rt ’ s per m i ssi on be f or e l eaving st ate , and w hi ch co m pel l ed her ap peara nce in cour t a m ounted to de m inim is r e s t r i c t i o ns n o tc o ns t i t ut i nga F o ur th Am e nd

m en t s eiz u re ); N ieves v . M cS w eeney, 24 1 F

. 3d 46, 56 ( 1st Cir

. 2001 ) ( decl i ni ng to fi nd a sei zure bas ed on co m pel l ed p re se n ce a t num er ous pr e- tr i alco urt appearance s a nd at tr i al, i n the abse nce o fa re quir ed bond o r tr avelr est ri ctions); D epie ro v. City of M acedonia , 18 0 F
. 3d 7 70 , 7 98 ( 6th Ci r . 19 99 ) ( fi ndi ng no F o ur th Am en dm en t se i zu r e w he re gov er nm ent c onduct consi ste d ofan o ffi cerissui ng a c ita tio n th at req u ire d a c ou rtap p ea ra n c e); Ril ey v . D or t on , 11 5 F .3d 11 59 , 116 2 (4 th C ir. 19 97 ) ( re fu sin g t o a p p ly Ju st ice G in sb u rg ’s c on tin u in g s e izu re th eo ry to a c laim o fex c e s s i v e f o r c e a g a i ns tp r e - t r i a l de t a i ne e s , i ns t e a d a ppl y i ng the Du e Pr o c e s s Cl a us e o f the F o ur t e e nth A m e nd

m ent, and collec ting case s that a nal yze atwh at poi nt, shor t o far re st, an i nd i vi du alm ay have suf f er ed a depri vati o n o fpe r so na l fr ee do m s uffi ci en t to i m pl i ca te the Fou rth A m en d m en t). Other cour ts h ave f ound a Fo urth Am endm ent v i ol ati on not w ithst anding the absence o fa physi calse i zure . The Thi r d Ci r cui t, f o r e xa m p le, i ns te ad co ns i der s th e seve rity of pre-t r ialrestrictions as the de term ining factor. D i Bel l a v. Bor ough of

Be ac hwood, 407 F.3d 599 , 6 0 2 ( 3 d Cir. 2 0 0 5 )

. T h e c o u r th e l d th a t“ [ p ] r e t r i a l c u s t o d y a n d s o me o ne r o us ty pes ofpr et r i al, no n- cus to di alr es tr i ct i o ns c on st itu te a Fo u rt h A m en d m en t s eiz u re .” Fo r ex am p le, in D iBella , the cou rt held that there w as no seizure w he re th e p l a i n t i ff s h a d s i mp l y b e e n i s s u e d s u mmo n s e s c o m-16 N o. 07

- 1928 pel l i ng the i r appearance i n cour t f ortr i al

. They were not ar re st ed , th ey d i d n o t p os t b ail, th ey w er e fre e t o t ra ve l, and they w er e no t r eq uir ed to r epor t t o pretr i alse rv i ces. The re str ai nt o n thei r l iber ty d u rin g c ourtpro ceedi ngs wa s n o ts u ffi c i e n tt o r a i s e a F o u r th A me n d me n tc l a i m. 40 7 F. 3d at6 02

- 03
. On th e o th erha nd, the c o ur t di d fi nd a F o u r th A m en d m en t s eiz u re w h er e a m an w as fals ely char g e d wi th a r s o n a nd mai l f r a ud , a nd wa s s ubj e c t e d to m or e s ign ifica n t p re -tr ial re st ric tio n s. Se eGal l o v. Ci ty of P hiladelphia , 1 61 F
. 3d 21 7 ( 3d Ci r . 1 99 8)

. Af te r resp o ndi ng to a n oti ce , Ga l l o was a r r ai g ne d a nd the n r el ea se d o n a $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 b o nd

. He wa s no t a r r e s t e d, de t a i ne d or h a nd

cuffed, but he was prohibi ted fro m tr avel in g outsi de of N ew J er sey and Pe nnsyl vani a, and was re quir ed to c on ta c t pr e-t ria l se rv ice s on a w ee kly ba sis
. G allo , 16 1 F

. 3d at2 19

. The se r es tr i ct i o ns wer e i n pl ac e f o r eight m o nths bef or e Gal l o w as acqui tte d ofthe charg es. H e w as al so r equi r ed to a tt en d c o urt h eari ng s, inc l udi nghi s tr i al

. The Thir d Ci rcui t f ound that, al though i t w as a cl os e q uesti on, thes e pr e- tr i alco nd i ti ons am ounted to a sei zure . G allo , 161 F.3d a t 222-23. Find ing Justice G insbu rg’s co nc ur r en ce i n Alb r ightcom p ell ing, th e cou r t w a s p ersuaded that the ob li gat i on t o appear in cour t, enf or ced bythe b o nd, a nd c o m po unde d b y the t r av elr es tr i ct i o ns an d ot h er co n d itio n s, h ad t h e effe c t of m ak in g G allo “h alt .” 161 F. 3d at 223. T h e F i fth C i r c u i t, l i k e th e T h i r d, c o n c l u d e d th a ta s u mm ons, c om bi ned w i th ce rt ai n oner ous pr e- tr i alr est ri cti o ns , may co ns ti tu te a s ei zu r e f o r F o ur thAm en dm en t p u rp os es . E vans v. Ba ll, 168 F.3d 8 5 6 , 861 (5th C ir. 1999), overruled on ot he rgroun ds b y Cas t e l l ano v. Fragozo , 35 2 F
. 3dN o. 07

- 1928 17 93 9 ( 5th Ci r . 2 00 3)

. I n respon se t o a s um m o ns , Ev an s ap p eared in cou rt to an sw er ch arges he l ater all eged w ere base l ess . H e was fin ger pri nted, photo gr aphed, and required t o si gn a perso nal r eco gni zance bond. H e was re quir ed to r epor t t o pretr i alse rv i ces once a m on th , was pr o hibi te d fr o m t r av el i ngo ut si de th e st at e wi th o utthe pe r mi s s i o n o fthe cour t, a nd wa s r e qu i r e d t o p r o v i de f edera l o ffi cer s with fi nanci aland i dentifyin g i nfo rm at i o n . 1 6 8 F
. 3 d a t 86 0

- 6 1

. T h e c o u r tf o u n d th a tth e s u mm ons , i n c o mbi na t i o n wi th the s e p r e t r i a l r e s t r i c t i o ns, dim i ni shed Evans’ l iber ty enough t o re nd er h i m se i zed un d er the F o u rth A m en d m en t. 168 F.3d at 861. H ow ever, be ca us e i t was no t cl ea r l y e st ab l ished thata s um m o ns an d pr et r i alr es tr i ct i o ns c o ns ti tu te d a F o ur thAm en dm en t sei zure , the cour t f ound th e d efendants were enti tl ed to quali fi ed i m m unity. 16 8 F
. 3d at 862. The S ec o nd Ci r cui t ha s he l d tha t “whi l e a st at e ha s the und oubte d author i ty, in c onnecti on with a c ri m i nal p ro c ee d in g, to res tr ict a p ro p er ly a c c u se d cit ize n ’s c on st itu tio n al ri ght t o tr avelo utsi de ofthe sta te as a co nd i ti on ofhi s pre tr ial re l eas e, and m ay or der hi m to m ake peri odi c co urt appearance s, suc h cond i ti ons ar e a pp ro pr i at el y v i ewe d a s se i zu r es wi th i n the mean i ngo fthe Four th A m endm ent. ” M urphy v. Lyn n , 11 8 F
. 3d 938, 94 6 ( 2d Cir

. 19 97)

. The M urphyco urt uph el d a verdi ct in f avo r o fa pl aint i ffb r i ng i nga Four thAm en dm en t m al i ci o us pr o se cut i o n c l ai m a g ains t two po l i ce o ffi ce r s who signed sp uriou s c rim inal com p lai nt s accu sing th e plaintiff of both m i sdem eanor and fel ony off enses . 11 8 F
. 3d at 942. To m ake o ut such a cl ai m , the cour t r equi re d a pl ai nti ffto show ( 1) the com m encem ent orconti nuati on ofa cri m i nal18 N o. 07

- 1928 proce edi ng by a defe nd ant agai nst a p l ai nti ff; ( 2) a ter m i nati o n o fthe pr o ce edi ngf av o r ab l e to the pl aint i ff; ( 3) the abse nce o fpro b abl e ca use f orthe proce edi ng; ( 4) actual m al i ce on th e pa r t o fthe de f en dan t; a nd ( 5) a po st
- ar r ai g nm en t depr ivation of liberty gu aran teed by the Con sti tu ti o n. 11 8 F .3 d a t 9 43 . N ot in g t h e fu n d am en ta l na tu re of a c itizen’ s ri ght to tr avelfr om state to state , the cour t hel d that a pr e- tr i al r es tr i ct i o n o ftha t r i ghtha s F o ur thAm en dm en t i mpl i c a t i o ns . 1 18 F. 3d a t9 4 5
. T he c o ur ta l s o wr o t e a ppr o vi ng l y o fJ us ti ce Gin sb ur g ’ s co nc ur r en ce i n Alb r ight, fin ding that the e i ght t ri alco urt appearance s r equi re d of th e pl aint i ffwhi l e th e cr i m i na l c ha r g es wer e pen di ng als o c on tr ibu te d to a fin d in g of a p os t-a rra ign m en t d ep rivati on o fl iber ty und erthe Fou rt h A m endm ent. 11 8 F
. 3d at 946. P r i o r t o th e S u p r e me C o u r t ’ s o p i n i o n i n A lbr ight, we rej ecte d the concept of conti nuing sei zure i n a c ase i nvol vin g p olic e m isc on d u c t p os t-a rre st an d p re -c h ar ge . Wi l ki ns v. M ay, 87 2 F
. 2d 190, 19 4 ( 7th C i r. 19 89)

. W i l ki ns was ar re ste d o n s u spi ci on o fbankr obbe ry . H e a l l ege d that, dur i nghi s in te r r o g at i o n, whi l e he was ha ndcu ff ed an d de f e ns e l e s s , a n F BIa g e ntp o i nt e d a gu n a th i s h e a d, in flict in g s ev er e m e n t al d ist re ss on h im an d ca u sin g h im to confess . W i l ki ns sued th e FBI age nt and hi s par tner und erS ecti on 1 983, f orvi ol ati ng hi s co nsti tuti onalr i ghts bye xt r ac tinghi s co nfes si o n a t g unpo i nt
. On appe al, the iss u e b efo re u s w as w h et h er W ilkin s h ad su fficie n tly al l eg ed a co ns ti tu ti o na l de pr i va ti o n. At the t i m e o f th e pol i ce m i sco nd uct, W i l kin s had al re ady be en se i zed f or Fou rth A m en d m e n t p urp oses bec au se he had been arr es te d. 8 72 F
. 2d at1 92
. A na tu r ali nt er pr et at i o n o ftheN o. 07

- 1928 19

w or d “sei zure ” m i gh t li m i t i t t o the ini ti alacto fse i zi ng, and t he F o ur th Am e nd men tc l e a r l y a pp l i e s t o tha ti ni ti al ac t. 8 72 F
. 2d at1 92 -93. W e r ej ec te d the c o nc epto fa c o nti nuing sei zure Four th A m endm ent anal ysi s f orp oli ce conduct duri ng a post- ar re st, pre - charg e i nter ro gat i on bec au se c ustod iali nt errogation “d oes not curt aila person ’s f re e do m o fa c t i o n; i tp r e s up po s e s tha th e h a s a l r e a dy l o s ttha tfr e e do m. ” 8 7 2 F
. 2 d a t1 9 4
. I ns t ead , we o pi ne d, the due pro cess cl ause appli ed, and i t was “f orth e t ri er o ff ac t t o de ci de whethe r a pa r ti cul ari nc i den t i nv o l vi ng i n t e r r o g a t i o n a tg u n p o i n ti s s o t e r r i fy i n gi n th e c i r c u mst an c es as to const i tute a depri vati on o fl iber ty w i th in the m eani ng o ft he due pro cess cl ause. ” 8 72 F. 3d at 195. W e defi ned the r el evantl iber ty i nter estas the f re edom f r o m s ev er e bo di l y o r ment alha r m i nfl i ct ed i n the cour se ofan inter ro gat i on. 87 2 F
. 2d at 195. W e r eaffi r m ed o ur r ej ec ti o n o fthe c o nc epto fa c o ntinui ngs ei zu r e i n Ree d v. City of Chi cago , 77F. 3d 1049 , 10 52 n. 3 ( 7 th Cir

. 1996 ) , a nd Le ev. Ci ty of Chi cago , 33 0 F
. 3d 456, 463 n

. 3 (7th C ir. 2003). N either of those ca ses, how ever, are dir ectl y o n poi nt her e b ec au se in e ach ca se ther e was a cl eari ni ti al s eiz ure. Reed was ar re ste d and confi ned fo r tw enty- thre e m onths pri orto hi s a cquit tal f orfi rs t degr ee m ur der

. He b r o ug hthi s S ec ti o n 1 98 3 ac ti o n f o r unl awful ar rest, se ar ch, and sei zure to o l ate under the st atute o f l i m i ta ti o ns . He was l eft wi thc l ai m s f o r mal i ci o us pr o se cuti o n a nd un l awful co nfi ne m en t ag ains t th e ar r es ting o ffi ce r s. W e n o te d tha t, a l th o ug h the c o nc epto fc o nti nuing sei zure was “i ntri gui ng, ” we had al re ady r ej ecte d i t i n Wi l ki ns . 77 F. 3d at 1052 n . 3. W e a ffi rm ed the dism i ssa l of R ee d ’s c laim be c au se , at b ot to m , it w as rea lly a c laim20 N o. 07

- 1928 th at h e w as arr es te d an d ch ar ge d w i t h o u t p ro b ab le ca us e , a c l a i m tha t he c o nc e de d wa s t i me-b a r r e d. Lee alle ge d a Fo u rt h A m en d m en t c laim for t h e s eiz u re of h is caras ev i dence i n a c ase . H e conceded that the ini ti al i m pound m ent of the car by the ci ty w as proper . The city subsequentl y r efused to r etur n th e c arwh en the re was no l o ng e r a l e g i t i mat e n eed to k e e p i tu nl e s s Le e p a i d a f ee. Ci ti ng R eed a nd Wi l ki ns , we no t e d tha tF o ur th Am e nd

m en t se i zu r e cl ai m s a re t empor al l y r es tr i ct ed to the in itia l d ep riv at ion
. Lee , 3 3 0 F. 3d at 465. Beca us e L ee’s c om p lain t d id n o t im p lica te th e in itia l d ep riv at ion of h is proper ty but r atherthe f ai rnes s o fthe proce ss that exi ste d f orsubse quentl y r eco ver i ng hi s pro perty, w e note d that du e pr o c e s s a na l y s i s wa s a b e t t e r fi t f o r Le e ’ s c l a i m . 33 0 F. 3d at 466. The c o nc epto fc o nt i nui ngs ei zu r e i s a po o r fi t f o r the f acts o fBi el anski ’ s ca se, i n any eve nt, bec ause to have a co nt i nui ng sei zure , o ne m ust hav e a se i zure in t h e fi rs t pl ac e. I n Wi l ki ns , R eed, a nd Lee, there w as an i nitial seizure at a s i ngl e poi nt i n ti m e, and the pla i nti ff s s ought to r ec o ve r f o r su bse que nte ve nt s. The a ppl i ca ti o n o fthe conti nuing sei zure theo ryto o ur ca se s till l eave s us w i th th e que st i o n o fwheth er Bi el an sk i was e ve r s ei ze d i n the fi rs t i nstance
. Bi el an sk i, as we noted ab ove , al l ege s three f acts i n supp or t o fhercl ai m thatshe w as sei zed f or Four th A m endm ent purpos es: ( 1) she w as com pe l l ed by proce ss to att end num er ous c ourthea rin gs ; ( 2) she w as requ ired to obtain the p erm issi on of the cou rt before l eaving the st ate ; and ( 3) she w as re quir ed to subm i t t o an i nt erview w ith a prob ation offi cer.N o. 07

- 1928 21 The Suprem e Cour t “ adhere[ s] to the vi ew thata perso n i s ‘ sei zed’ o nl y when, by m eans ofphysi calf or ce o r a s how of a u th or ity , hi s f r e ed om of m ov em en t is res tr ain ed .” U nite d State s v. M endenhall, 4 4 6 U
. S

. 54 4 , 5 5 3 ( 1 9 8 0 )

. No cour t has hel d t h at a s um m ons al one const i tutes a sei zure , and w e co ncl ud e th at a s um m ons al one does not equa l a s ei zu r e f o r F o ur thA m endm en t pur po se s. To ho l d o th e r wi s e wo u l d t r a n s f o r m e v e r y t r a ffi c t i c k e ta nd j u ry su m m on s in to a p ot en tia l Sec tio n 19 83 cla im
. See M a h o ney, 97 6 F

. 2d at 1060

. A l though the tr avelr est ri cti on an d the i nt e r v i e w wi th the pr o b a t i o n o ffi c e r mightbe s o me wh a tmo r e o n e r o u s th a n t he su mmo n s a l o n e , we c on c l ud e that they a re i nsuffi ci ent r est ra i nts o n f re edom of m ov em en t t o c on st itu te a se izu r e . T h e F irs t C irc u it r emar k ed i n N ieves th at “if t h e c o n c ep t o f a se izu re is re ga rd ed as ela st ic en ou gh to en c om p as s sta n d ar d c o n d iti o ns o fpre tr i alre l ea se , vi r tu al l y ev er y cr i m i na l de f en dan t w i l l b e de e med t o b e s e i z e d pe nd i ng the r e s o l ut i o n of the c harg es aga i nst hi m . ” 2 41 F. 3d at55
. The co urt opi ned that gar den-va ri etym aliciou s p ro se c u tio n ca ses w er e be tte r left to th e s ta te co u rt s. Id

. The c on dit i ons i m posed on B iela n sk i w er e n ot th e “ d ra m at ic” or “ tr au m at ic” co n d iti o ns we m en ti o ne d i n M a ho ney . 9 7 6 F
. 2 d a t1 0 6 0
. No doubt being f al sel y a ccused ofm ol est in g a chi l d w as i tse l ftr aum ati c , and a sta te cour t m al i ci ous pr ose cuti on cl ai m would have add re sse d that inj ury, but a f al se accus at i o n i s no t a se i zu r e. F o r the t r av elrestri ct i o n, Bi el an sk i do es no t cl ai m tha t th e co ur t den i ed he r a ny re quest t o tr avelo utsi de the st at e, onl y that s he was re quir ed to r equest perm i ssi on. S u c h a r equi re m ent i s, at m o st, a pr ec ur so r t o a po ss ibl e se i zu re rat he r tha n a22 N o. 07

- 1928 sei zure i tse l f

. The si ngl e r equi re d m eet i ng w ith a pro bati on o fficer i s the ty pe ofst andard condi ti on o fpre tr i al re l eas e that i s no t o nero us e n ou gh to co nsti tute a s ei zure . 241 F. 3d at 55. M osti m port antl y, we ha ve state d that th e F o ur thA m en dm en t “ dr o ps o utofthe pi ctur e f o l l o wi ng a per son’ s i ni ti alappeara nce i n co urt. ” H e r nan dez v. She ahan , 455 F. 3d 772, 777 ( 7th Cir

. 2006 )

. The travel re str i cti on a n d t he m eet i ng with the pr obat i on o ffi cer w er e re str i cti ons i m posed by a j ud ge once Bie l anski ap p ea re d in c ou rt, an d so a Fou rt h A m en d m en t c l a im aga i nst these d efendants ca nnot s tand. I n shor t, Bi el anski ha s fail ed to al l ege a sei zure ( conti nuing oro ther w i se) by th es e defen dan ts an d th us ha s no cl ai m unde r the Four th A m endm ent.

B. W e turn next to B iela nski ’ s cl ai m thatshe w as denie d th e rig h t t o a fair t ria l w h en th e d efe n d an ts w ith h e ld ex c u l pator y a nd i m peachi ng ev i dence i n vi ol ati on o f Brady v . M a ryl and, 37 3 U.S

. 83 ( 1963 )

. Bi el anskial l ege d that , b et w een Au gust 17, 20 01 and N ove m ber16 , 20 01, B erg an d B yrne learned a nu m ber of facts th a t w ere excul pator y b ut di d not turn any ofthi s i nfo rm ati on o ver to D C FS, p rosecu tors, th e j uv en ile court, and Bielans ki’ s d efe ns e co uns el

. S pec i fi ca l l y , Bi el an sk i a l l eg ed th atBe rg and Byrne knew thatBrentwas m edi cate d fo r A tte nti on Defi ci t H yper acti vi ty Diso rder( A DH D) a nd was ass i gned to speci aleducati on cl ass es; thatBrent ’ s paren ts had di ffi cul ty co nt r o l l i ng an d di sc i pl i ni ng hi m ; th at in the s u mme r o f2 0 0 1 , Br e n th a d d i s r o b e d a ts u mme r c a mpN o. 07

- 1928 23 and atte m pted to dis ro be otherchil dren; that i n J uly20 01, Br en t’ s par en ts a ng r i l y c o nfr o nt ed hi m a fte r l ea r ni ng fro m rela tiv e s t h at B re n t h ad at te m p te d to d isr ob e h is cou sins; an d that f oll ow ing the disrobing i nc iden ts, B rent ’s parents punished hi m and questioned hi m i n a m anner that sugge ste d to hi m t hat s om eone had sexual l y abused hi m . A ccor ding to Bie l ansk i, al l o fthi s i nfo rm ati on was m ate ri alto the val i dity a nd r eliabi l i ty ofBrent ’ s s tat em ent that “ Lorr i” h ad sexual l y abused hi m . The di str i ct cour t f ound that a Brady cl ai m i s e xti nguish ed b y an acqui tta l bec ause the di scl osur e o fthe evi dence w oul d not have changed the outco m e o fthe tr i al

. The cour t r em ar ked that the Bradyanaly si s was di ffi cul t e nough in the f ace o fa c o nv ictio n, whenthe c o ur t th enha s to de te r m i ne w hetherthe evi dence w oul d have chang ed the outco m e. I n the c as e o fa n a cqui tt al, a c o ur t ha s to de te r m i ne w hether, as sum i ng the defendant had been convi c ted (w h ich sh e h ad n ot ), th e e x c u l p at or y e vid en c e w ou ld ha ve l ed to a n a cqui tt al

. I n most c ases o fa cqui tt al, the co ur t st ated, the r e wi l l b e no da m ag es unl es s th e wi th

he ld inform ation w ou ld h ave d estroyed the p rosecu tion’s case . The co urt hel d that the r eve l ati on of th e a dd i ti onal evid en ce w o u ld n ot ha ve d estroyed the p rosecu tion’s ca se . Tha t i s, thi s i nf o r m at i o n wo ul d no t ha ve l ed to th e p re -tr ial d ism iss al of t h e c h ar ge s a ga in st B iela n sk i.

“ A Bradyvi ola tio n occ urs w hen the gov er nm ent f ai l s t o d isc los e e vid en c e m at er ially fav or ab le t o t h e a c c u se d .” Y o u ngblood v. W

es t Virginia , 5 4 7U. S

. 8 6 7, 8 6 9 ( 2 0 0 6 )

. The Bradyduty e xtends to i m peachm ent e vi d en c e as w el l as ex c u lp at or y e vid en c e. Yo u n g b l ood , 547U. S

. a t8 7 0
. And a cour t m ay fi nd thata Bradyvi ol ati on has o ccurr ed eve n24 N o. 07

- 1928

w hen the supp re sse d evid ence i s know n onl y t o pol i ce in ve st iga to rs an d n ot to th e p ro se c u to r. Id .; Kyles v . W hit ley, 51 4 U .S. 41 9, 43 8 (1 9 95 ). See a lso C a rvaja l v. D o m ing uez , 542 F. 3d 561, 56 6- 67 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ( i n or der t o m ake o ut a B r adyc l ai m , a pl aint i ffmustde m o ns tr at e th atthe evi dence ati ssue i s f avo rabl e t o the a c c u sed, ei ther because i t is exculpato ryor i m peachi ng; that the evi dence w as supp re sse d by the go ver nm en t, either w i l l full y o r i nadvert entl y; and that the evi dence w as m ate ri al, thati s, th atthe r e i s a rea so nabl e pr o babi l i tytha t pr ej udi ce e nsued); U nited Sta tes v. Wa rren , 454 F.3d 752 , 759 (7th C ir. 2006 ) ( sam e)

. O n appeal, the onl y part ofthe Bradyf o r m ul ati on at i ssue i s w hether the evi dence i n ques tio n was m at er i al

. “ [ F ] av o r ab l e ev i den ce i s m at er i al, a nd c o ns ti tu
ti o na l e r r o r r es ul ts fr o m i ts s uppr es si o n b y the g o ve r nm en t, i fthe r e i s a ‘ r ea sonable pr o babi l i ty ’ tha t, ha d the ev i den ce bee n di sc l o se d t o the de f en se , the r es ul t o fthe proce edi ng w oul d hav e been di ff er ent. ” Kyles , 51 4 U.S

. at 433- 34 ( ci ti ng U nited Sta tes v. B agley, 473 U .S. 66 7, 68 2 ( 1985 ) )

. I n dis cussin g th e di ff er ence between the “r easonab l e pr obab i l i ty” st andard an d a preponderance s t a nd a r d, the Co ur te xp l a i ne d: T he qu estion is not w he th er the d efend an t w ou ld m ore l i kel y than not have re cei ved a diff eren t ver dictwith the e v i de nc e , b ut whe the r i n i t s ab s e nc e h e r e c e i v e d a f ai r tr i al, understood a s a tr i alr esul ti ng i n a v er dict w or thy o fco nfi dence. Kyles , 51 4 U.S

. at 4 34. A defendant m ay dem onst ra te a Bradyvi ol ati on by“ sh ow i ng tha t the f avo rabl e e vi dence coul d rea sonab l y b e t ake n to put the w h ole case in suchN o. 07

- 1928 25 a d iffer en t ligh t a s t o u n d er m in e c on fid en c e in th e v er d ict .” Kyles , 51 4 U.S

. at43 5. The Suprem e Court has yet to add re ss th e si tuati on al l eg ed he r e, wher e ce r ta ine vi den ce was wi thhe l d b y the pr o s e c u t i o n a n d y e tth e d e f e n d a n tw a s s t i l l a c q u i t t e d. The go ver nm ent a rg ues that there can be no Bradyvi ol ati on i n the fac e of a n acqui tta l

. Bi el anskim ai ntai ns that an acqui tta l does notexti ngui sh a Bradyclai m bec ause a d ef e n d a n t m igh t b e a c q u itt ed ev en aft er an u n fair tria l, and the f ai l ure ofthe pros ecuti on t o re vealthi s e vidence i n a t i m el y f ashi on dam age d he r by unnecessar i l y pr ol ongi ng the pro ceedi ngs. The d i str i ct courto pined thatr eve l ati on o fthe ev id ence i n questi on would nothave sh o r te ne d th e pr o ce edi ng s, a nd we ag r ee . Al th o ugh the e v i de nc e c o ul d h a v e b e e n us e d t o i mpe a c h Br e nt ’ s c re dibi l i ty and off eran a l ter nate expla natio n f orhi s char ge ag ai ns t Bi el an sk i, the wi thhe l d e vi den ce was no t o fthe nature to cause a pros ecuto r to drop the charg es enti re l y. Se ver alo fo ur s i ste r ci rcui ts to cons i der the questi on have concl ud ed that a Bradycl ai m i s e xti ngui sh ed wh en a d efe n d a n t is ac q u itt ed or c h ar ge s a re d ro p p ed

. See M organ v. G er tz , 16 6 F

. 3d 1307, 13 10 (10 th Ci r. 19 99) ( “Regar dle ss ofan y m i sco nd uct bygo ver nm ent a gents bef or e o r du ri ng tr i al, a defe nd an t w ho i s a cquit ted c an n ot be sa id to h av e b ee nd e p r i v ed of th e rig h t t o a fair tr ial.” ); Flore s v. Satz , 13 7 F
. 3d 1275 , 12 78 (1 1th Ci r. 19 98) ( fi nd i ng no Bradyvi ol ati on i n the fac e ofan a cquit tal b ec au se Bradypro tect s a defendant fro m an unf ai r tr i al and an acqu itte d defendant doe s no t s ufferthe eff ects o f an u n fair tria l); M cCun ev. C ity of Gr and Rapi ds , 84 2 F
. 2d26 N o. 07

- 1928 903, 907 (6th C ir. 1988 ) (w he re crim inal charge s are dropped bef or e t ri al, and thus the underl yi ng cr i m i nal p ro c ee d in g t e r m i n at ed in a n ap p ella n t’s fav or , th er e is no inj ury ca us ed by the act of sup p ressing ex cu lpato ry ev id en c e). B ut see H a up t v. D illa rd, 17 F. 3d 285, 287- 88 ( 9th C ir. 1994) (w he re tri al j ud ge w as b iase d , de fend an t’s ac qui tt als pea k s o nl y t o the a m o unto fda m ag es d ue a nd is irr elevan t to w he th er he ha s a cau se of action for a viol ation of his du e proc ess right to a fai r tri al)

. W e ve r y r ec en tl y e xp resse d do ubti n Carv aj al “that a n acqui tte d defend an t can eve r est abl i sh the r equi si te prej ud i ce fora Bradyvi ol ati on. ” 5 42 F. 3d at 570. W e no ted tha tthe S up r e me Courtme a s ur e d Bradym ate ri al i ty by whe the r the n o nd i s c l o s ur e wa s s o se r i o us tha tthe s up pr es se d e vi den ce woul d ha ve pr o duced a di ff er en t ve rd ict
. Carv aj al , 542 F. 3d at 570 ( ci ting Stric k ler, 527 U
. S. at 28 9-9 0). W e t oo k thi s t o m ean that, al though a pro secuto r mus t de c i de whe the r e v i de nc e i s B r adym ate ri alpro specti vel y, “a tr ue co nsti tuti onalviol ati on i s m eas ured with th e o u t c o me i n mi n d

. ” 5 4 2 F
. 3 d a t5 7 0
. No n e th e l e s s , we an al y ze d the c l ai m t o d etermi ne whethe r, i n pa r t, “ th e dec i si o n t o g o t o t r i alwoul d ha ve b ee n a lter ed bythe desi re d discl osur e. ” 5 42 F. 3d a t 569. W e co ncl ud ed th er e, as w e d o h er e, th at th e d ec isio n to go to tr ial w ou ld not have been aff ecte d b y the a l l ege dly withhel d evi dence. Bradyr equi re s that the go vernm ent discl ose m ate ri al evi dence i n ti m e f orthe defe nd an t to m ake eff ecti ve use o fitattria l. See Wa rren , 4 5 4 F
. 3 d a t 7 6 1

. Ev e n l a t e di scl osure does notco nsti tute a Bradyv i o l at i o n u nless the defe nd ant i s unabl e t o m ake eff ecti ve use o fthe evi dence.N o. 07

- 1928 27 Wa rren , 454 F.3d at76 0. Se eal s o M oorev. Ca spers on , 34 5 F
. 3d 474, 49 3 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 3) ( no th i ngi n Bradyr equi re s that d isc los u re s b e m ad e b efo r e tria l be c au se , as lon g a s u ltim at e di sc l o su r e i s m ade be f o r e i t i s to o l at e f o r the d ef en dan t to make u se of any be ne fi ts o fthe e vi den ce , due p ro c es s i s s a tis fied ); U nited Sta tes v. G rintjes , 23 7 F
. 3d 876, 880 (7 t h C ir. 2001) ( Bradyde m an ds o nl y tha t th e di sc losure notc o m e so l at e as t o pr ev en t th e defen dan t fro m re c eiv in g a fair tr ial). U n d er th es e c a s e s, Brady evi dence can b e handed ove r on the ev e o ftr ial orev en du ri ng tr i also l ong a s th e defendant i s abl e t o use i t t o hi s o r he r adv an ta g e. Tha t sa i d, pur po se ful l y wi thho l di ng excul pator y o r i m peachi ng ev i dence unti l the l ast m om en t w ou ld be a risk y a n d et h ica lly q u es tio n ab le p r a c ti ce f o r g o v e r n me n ta g e n t s t o u n d e r t a k e , a n d we ce r ta i nl y do no t co ndo ne thata ppr o ac h wi tho ur opi ni on t oday. W e has ten t o add thatt h er e i s no al l ega ti o n h er e th atthe pr o se cut i o n pur po se ful l y wi thhe l d the subj ect evi dence. Earl i erdi scl osur e o fthi s e vi dence w ould n ot have re sul ted i n dis m i ssa l o fthe charg es pri ort o tr i al

. Fo r the m ostpart, the evi dence i s i m pea c h in g ra therthan ex cul pat o r y a nd i ts us e i n c r o ss - ex ami na ti o n o fthe i nvest i gat or s a nd the accusercer tai nl y would have cr eat ed c re d ibilit y iss u es f or th e t rie r of fa c t t o re so lve . Th e e vidence w eak ened p ar ts o fthe pros ecuti on’ s ca se but was no t th e ty pe o fe vi den ce tha t woul d have pr ec l ude d the charg es enti re l y. A nd Bi el anskiul ti m ate l y had a tr i al w hi ch r esul ted i n a v er dict “w or thy ofco nfi dence. ” Kyles , 51 4 U .S. at 4 34
. See a lso B agley , 4 7 3 U .S . at 675 (the p urpose ofthe Bradyr ule i s “ to ensure thata m isc ar ri age o f28 N o. 07

- 1928 j us t i c e do e s n o to c c ur ” )

. Be c a us e Bi e l a ns k i di d n o tsuf f er the har m that Bradya i m s to pr ev en t, we th er efo re c o ncl ud e there was no Bradyvi ol ati on her e.

III. I n s um, Bi e l a nski ha s f a i l e d t o a l l e g e a F o ur th Am e nd

m ent c laim bec ause she was notse i zed wh en she was sum m oned to tr i albef or e the j uveni l e co urt and subj ecte d to m i ni m alpre - tr i alr est ri cti ons. A nd she ha s fai l ed to a l l e g e a Bradydue proc ess cl ai m bec ause the undis cl ose d f avo rabl e e vi dence w oul d not hav e r esult ed i n ear l i er dism i ssal o fthe charg es and coul d not “ re aso nabl y b e tak e n t o p utthe wh o l e c a s e i n s uc h a di ff e r e ntl i g hta s to und er m i ne co nfi dence in the v er dict .” Kyles , 51 4 U.S

. at 435. A t bo tto m , Bi el anskihas al l ege d a cl ai m f or m al i ci o us pr o se cut i o n th at i s m o r e appr o pr i at el y b r o ug ht in st at e c ou rt
. See Wiley, 361 F.3d at 998. Bec au se he r M onell c l a i m d e p e n d e d e n t i r e l y o n th e v a l i di ty ofh e r fi r s tt wo cl ai m s, w e af fi rm the dism i ssa l o fthe M onell c laim as w ell. A FFI RMED .

12- 18- 08