## 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. 09

- 1498 R ONAL D P O RTIS, M ADR I C L ANC E , a nd E MM ETT L Y NCH, i ndi vi dual l y a nd on be hal fo fa cl ass , P la intif fs-A pp ellees , v.

C ITY OF C HI CAGO, I LLINO IS, D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant
.
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 Di v isi on. No . 02 C3139

—Robert W . G ettleman, Ju dge
.
A RG UE D S EP TE MBE R 14, 2009

— D ECI DE D J UL Y 23, 2010

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, Chi e f Judg e, a nd B AUERa nd E VANS, C ircu it Judges . E A S T E RB R OO K, Chi e

f Judg e . Th e Ci t y o f Ch i c a g o occa s i o n a l l y ma k e s c u s t o d i a l a r r e s t s o f p e r s o n s wh o h a v e c o mm i tte d off enses thatar e punis habl e byfi nes b u t no t i m pri sonm ent. Fr om M ay 2, 20 00, thr ough M ay 31, 2004,2 N o. 09

- 1498 the Ci ty’ s pol i ce m ade approxi m ate l y a m i l l i on a rr est s. Of these , som e 36, 000 w er e f or fi ne- onl y off enses , su ch as diso rder l y c onduct, ga m blin g, pedd l i ng witho ut a l i cense, f ai l i ng to st op a carata stop sign, o r w al ki ng a dog without a l eas h. S ee Ki r ch of f v. Flynn , 78 6 F. 2d 320 ( 7th Ci r. 19 86) . T he Consti tuti on a l l ows pol i ce t o m ake custo dialar re sts f orfi ne- only offenses , se e At wate rv. Lago Vist a , 532 U .S. 31 8 (2 00 1), an d th is is m or e like ly to o cc ur ifthe s us pec t ca nno t o r wi l l no t pr o vi de i den

ti fi cati on th at w ou l d al l ow the pol i ce t o w ri te a t i cket

. St i l l, ev en an uncooper ati ve p erson i s e nti tl ed to be re l ea se d a fte r a r ea so na ble ti m e dur i ngwhi chthe ar re sti ng auth or i ty l ear ns wh o he i s, per f or m s a check f o r o ut st an di ngwar r an ts , a nd o bt ai ns c o ns en t to the ter m s o fbo nd

. S ee Ge rs t e i n v . Pu gh , 42 0 U.S
. 10 3, 11 3–14 (1975); Gr am e nos v. Jew el Com pani e s , Inc . , 79 7 F
. 2d 432, 437 (7th Cir. 1986). A fter Ch icago’s police know the ar r e sted pers on’s iden tity and conc lud e t ha t he is not w an ted on a m ore ser i ous c harg e, and a s upervi sordeter m i nes that pr obab l e ca us e suppo r ts the a cc us at i o n, a de sks er g ea nt i s s ue s wh a tthe p a r t i e s c a l l a CB ( f o r Ce nt r a l Book i ng) num ber

. T h is establ i shes the per son’ s e nti tl em ent t o be r el ea se d o n a pe r so na l

- r ecogn iz an ce b o nd ( whi chthe par ti e s c a l l a n I

-b o n d ) u n d e r I l l

. S
. C t
. R
. 5 5 3 ( d )
. T he bond m ust be pre pared and si gned; the p olice m ust re tr i eve and re turn the ar re ste d perso n’s bel ongi ngs ( f or pock et kni ves and m any o theri tem s a re notappropri ate i n pol i ce s tat i on hol ding ar eas ; theyar e t ake n an d i nv en to r i ed f o r r etur n o n the pe r so n’ s r el ea se )
. Pl ai nti f f s i n thi s cl ass act i on co ntend that tak i n g m or e thanN o. 09

- 1498 3 two ho ur s to pe r f o r m the s te ps ne ede d t o g etfr o m the gener ati on o fthe CB num berto the suspect’ s r elease necess ar i l y m akes detenti on unre aso nabl e a nd vi ol ate s the f ourth am endm ent. The dist ri ct cour t agr eed w ith that subm i ssi on. Se e 621 F. Supp. 2d 608, 620 (N .D . I ll. 2008 )
. Bef or e b eg inningwh at coul d be a l engthy pro cess of ascertaining each class m em ber’s d am ages , t h e cou rt c e r t i fi e d the l e g a l i s s ue f o r a pp e a l u nd e r 28 U. S
. C. §1 29 2(b ). Th is c ou rtac c ep te d th e a p p ea l. Ch i cago as ks us to hol d that the co ncept o f“r eas onabl eness” i s i ncom p atibl e with a b ri ght- l i ne r ule , such a s “no m or e than two hours bet w een CB n u m b er and re

lea se .” In Co unty of Riversi d e v . M cLaugh li n , 50 0 U.S
. 44 , 56 –57( 19 91 ) , the S upr eme Co ur t es tabl i sh ed a 48

- ho ur l i ne be tw een a rr estand pres entat i on t o a m agis tr at e f or a pro b ab le-c ause hear i ng. But that l i ne, wh i ch i s a go od d e a l lo n ge r th an th e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s t w o-h ou r ru le, is onl y a pre sum pti on: d el ay ofm or e than 48 hours i s pre sum ed u nrea sonab l e a nd m ust be j usti fi ed by the g over nm ent; del ay of48 hour s o r les s i s pre sum ed re asona b le, and the a rr est ed pers on be ar s the bur den of est abl i shi ng tha t the l ength ofhi s custod y is no nethel ess unrea sonab l e. The dis tr i ct c ourt’ s t w o- hour rul e, by co ntra st, i s no t a bur den-al l oca ti on devi ce; the dist ri ct judge concl ud ed t ha ti tj us tdo e s n o tm att er why the p r o c e s s fr o m CB num berto r el eas e t ake s m or e t i m e. I fallo f fi cer s a re ti ed up with m or e ur gent m att er s ( a r i ot st ar ts, f orexam ple , ora gr oup ofyo ungster s i s a rr est ed, and j uv en i l es’ h igh er p ro c es sin g p rio r i t y d ela ys th e h an d lin g of a d u lt4 N o. 09

- 1498

case s) , that ’ s i rr el evant
. I fso m any peo ple are ar re ste d at o nc e th at o f fi ce r s o n dut y i n th e st at i o nhouse are ov er w h elm ed a n d a q u eu e d ev elo p s, th at ’s irr ele va n t. If a per son i s t o o dr un k o r hi g h o n dr ug s t o mak e a vo l unt ar y de ci si o n t o a cc eptthe c o ndi ti o ns o fthe b o nd (ab ou t 1 0% of p eo p le a r r e s te d in C h ica go for fin e-o n ly offen ses are d r u nk or high ), or is i lland receiving em erg en cy medi ca l t r ea tment, tha t’ s i rr el ev an t to o . Gi ve n the c o nt e xtua l n a t ur e o fa na l y s i s u nd e r the f o ur t h a men dm ent, se e Illino is v. G a tes , 462 U .S. 21 3, 2 3 2 (1 98 3), it is ver y har d to j usti fy a n i nfl exibl e t w o- hour rul e. M or e than hard. It is im possibl e. A fterGers te in st ate d that peopl e m ay be he l d onl y a r eas onabl e a m ou n t o f ti m e a fterar re st, co urts acr oss the countr y b ega n to adopt num er i caldeadl i nes. The S up re m e Cour t o bser ved in M cLaugh li n thatthe profusi on o fthes e arbi tr ar y l i nes wa s n o to n l y u n wa r r a n t e d b u ta l s o c o mpl i c a t e d the ad m inistration of th e c r im inal-j us tice system
. 500 U
. S. at 56. I t a dopted the 48

- hour burden- shi ftin g a pp ro ach

— wh i c h, t o r e p e a t, i s n o t a b r i g h t l i n e o f t h e k i nd t he dist ri ct j ud ge drew

— t o s up e r s e d e th e v a r i o u s t i me l i m i ts that othe r cour ts had esta b lish ed, and to ge t f edera l j ud ges o ut o fthe busin es s o f“m aking l egi sl ati ve j udg m en ts a nd o ve r se eingl ocalj ai l ho us e o per at i o ns .” Ib id

. T he d istri ct j ud ge in th is case ha s d one j us t th e so rt ofthi ng tha tM cLaugh li n di s a pp r o v e d. No w i ti s t r ue tha tthe 48- ho urb ur de n- s hi ft i nga pproa ch do e s n o ta pp l y wh e n t he p o l i c e do n’ tp l a n to prese nt the suspect to a m agi str ate f ora probabl e- cause hear i ng. S ee C ho rtek v . M ilw a uk ee, 3 56 F. 3d 740, 74 6–47N o. 09

- 1498 5 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04)
. But thi s does notm ean that a di str i ct co ur t ca n putM cLaugh li n ’ s r at i o na l e to o ne s i de and es tabl i sha num erica l de fi ni ti o n o fa r ea so nabl e det en tio n . Th e Ju st ice s o b se rv ed inAt w a terthatM cLaugh li n ’s gener alapproa ch appli es to ar re sts f orfi ne- onl y o f f en ses, s e e 5 3 2 U
. S
. a t 3 5 2 , a n d m a y b e s u p p l e m e n t e d b y t i me lim its es ta b lish ed by legis lat u re s. A fte r re m ar k i n g in Cho rteko n the f act thatM cLaugh li n d e a l s w i t h th e t i me b e t we e n a r r e s ta n d p r e s e n t a t i o n t o a ma g i s tr a t e , we d id n o t g o o n to esta bli sh a nu m erical d efi nition of a re as on ab le t im e b et w ee n arr es t a n d rele as e. N o r d id Gramen os o r an y o f th e o th er dec i si o ns o n whi chpl ai nti f f s r el y . Tho se de ci si o ns c al l f o r a n e xplan atio n o fe xte nde d de l ay bu t do no t es tabl i sha n o ut erl i m i t. The only n u m er ica l line is M cLaugh li n ’ s, a nd i ti s a p r e s umption rath er th an a m ax im um . Just as a d istric t c ou rt could n ot sa y “ Ch i cago has 24- hour cour ts and l ots o fpo l i ce , s o no twi th st an di ngM c L au ghl in every p erson ar re ste d i n Ch i cago m ust be ta ken b ef or e a m agi str ate w i t hi n 1 2 h o ur s ” , s o i tc a n’ ts e ta n ume r i c a l l i mi tf o r f i neo nl y o f f en se s, b as ed o n I l l i no i s’ proc edu r es f o r r el ea si ng peopl e o n pers onalr eco gni zance; M c L au gh l in t el l s us that re aso nabl eness m ust be as ses sed o ne cas e a t a ti m e. I t takes a legisl atu re to ad op t a rule su c h a s “ no m ore th ant wo h o ur s m aypa ss b et wee n aCB nu m be r a nd re l eas e. ” The r eas onabl en es s requi re m ent o fthe f ourth am endm ent i s a st andard, nota rul e. N e i t he r the S t a t e o fI l l i no i s n o r the Ci t y o fCh i c a g o h as adopted a t i m e l i m i t f orthe peri od bet w een a rr est( or t he CB n umb er ) and r e l e a s e o n b o nd

. Ev e n i fthe y h a d, enf or cem ent woul d b e a m att ero fst ate l aw . The f ourth6 N o. 09

- 1498

am endm ent doe s no t cr eat e re m edi es f orvi ol ati ons of sta te orl oca l l aw . S ee Virgin ia v. M o o re, 553 U
. S. 164 (2008). N o r do es the f o ur th a m endm en t g i ve a ny s pec i als ta tu s to CB nu m be r s. The di st r i ctc o ur t di d no t e xp la i n why i t s et a t i m e l i m i t f ora parti cul arpa rto fthe p ro c ess . W hat i s r eas on abl e, o r not, i s ho w m uch ti m e pass es be twe ena r r es t an d r el ea se , i n r el at i o n t o the r ea so ns for d et en tio n ; t h e t im e fo r ea c h st ep alon g t h e w ay is n ot subj ect to an i nd ependent l i m i t. S ee Un i t e d S t a t e s v. Chil ds , 27 7 F
. 3d 947 ( 7th Ci r. 20 02) ( en ban c ). N one of th e c las s m em b er s w as h eld m or e t h an 24 h ou rs in to ta l, an d n on e o f th e re p re se n ta tiv e p lain ti f fs w as h eld m o r e th an1 61⁄4 hours

. The medi ant i m e be twe enthe CB n u mb e r a n d r e l e a s e wa s 3
. 7 5 h o u r s d u r i n gthe 52 m on th s co ver ed by the c l ass defi ni ti on; the m ean ti m e was 4. 42 hours. The le n gt h o fdetent i on would not decrea se i fChica go w er e t o re al l oca te h ow it s o f fi cer s’ t i me i s de v o t e d, s o tha ti two ul d tak e lo ng e r t o do i de nt i t y a nd wa r r a ntc he c k s ( s t e ps th a tp r e c e de the CB num ber) w hi l e the pro cess i ng afterthe CB num ber wer e ex pedi te d b y the as sig nm en t o fa ddi ti o na l pe r so nhours to thos e cho re s. Yet that’ s the so rto fr eal l oca ti on that the di str i ct c ourt ’ s o rderwould l ead to

. W hat rem ai ns true, as M cLaugh li n o bs er ve d a nd C ho rtek re i t e r a t e d, i s t ha t de t e nt i o n l e s s t ha n 4 8 ho ur s m ay be un reason ably lo n g . N eed less de lay, or d elay f or delay’s sak e

— o r, wor se , de l ayde l ibe r at el y c reat ed so tha t th e pr o ce ss b ec o m es the pun ishment

— vi ol ate s the f ourth am endm ent. M cLaugh li n , 5 0 0 U. S
. a t5 6 , 5 9. I n d e e d , we su gg es te d inGr am enos a nd C ho rtektha t det en ti o ns as bri efas f our hours coul d be e xc ess i ve and m ust beN o. 09

- 1498 7 j us ti fi ed. Butthe pl ai nt i f fb ea r s th e bur den s o fpr o o fa nd per su as i o n o n th e co nt en ti o n th at an y par ti cul ar de tenti on was exces si ve, and the cour t m us t ex am i ne not o nl y the l en g tho fa g i ve n de ten ti o n b uta l so the r ea so ns why r el ea se was de f er r ed. A se r i es o fde ci si o ns fin di ng one orano therdel ay unreas onabl e ( orj usti fied ) m ay l ea d C h icag o to m odi fy i ts pol i ci es, but no num er i cal shor tcut w i l l co veral l si tuati ons. T h is m ea n s n o t on ly th at th e d ist ric t c ou rterr ed in presc ribi ng a t w o- hour l i m i t fro m CB num berthr ough r el ea se , b uta lso th at th e cl as s m us t be de ce r ti fi ed. The p re m ise of th e c las s c er tific at ion is th at on e ru le appli es to al l m em ber s. Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 23 ( b)(3). Because r ea so nabl en es s i s a st an dar d r ather tha n a r ul e, a nd be ca us e o ne de ta i ne e’ s ci r cumst an ce s di f f erfr o m a no th er ’ s, c o m m on que st i o ns do no t pr edo m i na te a nd c las s c er tific at ion is in ap p ro p ria te . So w e h eld inHa rper v. Sheri ff of Coo k C ounty, 581 F.3d 511 ( 7 t h C ir. 2009 ), anothe r case ar i si n g f ro m the proce du re s use d to pr o c e s s n e wl y a r r e s t e d p e r s o ns b e f o r e r e l e a s e on b o nd

. E ve ry th in g s aid inHa rperi s e qually a pp l i cabl e her e. The thre e i nd i vi du alpl ai nti f f s m ay be abl e t o show that th e y we r e h e l d u nr e a s o nab l y l o ng, b utthe y mus tdo so wi t h o u tth e b e n e fi to fa t wo - h o u rc a p , a n d th e i r c l a i ms m us t procee d a s per so na l r athe r tha n c l as s l i ti g at i o n. The Su p re m e C ou rtsu gg es te d inM cLaugh li n thatcl ass tr eat
m ent m i ght b e a pp ro pri ate i fthe class so ught t o est abl i sh that a j ur i s di c t i o n ha d a do pt e d a p o l i c y o fde l ib e r ate d elay. 50 0 U.S
. at59
. That s or t o fpol i cy coul d be e nd ed by an i nj uncti on. W e do not f or ecl ose the possibi l i ty of8 N o. 09

- 1498 such cl ass - w i de re l i efher e, b ut the re cor d so f ar d o e s n ot estab li sh de liberat e d elay. Th e d istri ct cou rt’s deci si on i s revers ed, and the case i s r em anded f orpro ce edi ng s co ns i st en t wi ththi s o pi ni o n.

7- 23- 10