Source: http://hankinsandman.com/index.php/the-firm/published-articles/52-a-new-cause-of-action-exists-under-198314
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 08:20:31+00:00

Document:
"A New Cause of Action Exists Under SEC. 1983"
Under state law, in false arrest, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution cases, plaintiffs counsel faces defeat by the establishment of probable cause. However, under the Third Circuit's recent decision in Halsey v. Pfeiffer, 750 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 2014), where fabrication or withholding of evidence has a meaningful connection to a prosecution, conviction and incarceration, an independent cause of action now exists under ß 1983 for deprivation of substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, despite the existence of probable cause.
In so holding, the court joined a number of other circuits. See Zahreyv. Coffey, 221 F.3d 342, 344 (2d Cir. 2000); Washington v. Wilmore, 407 F.3d 274, 282 (4th dr. 2005); Castellano v. Frogozo, 352 F.3d 939, 955 (5th Cir. 2003); Gregory v. City of Louisville, 444 F.3d 725, 737 (6th Cir. 2006); Buckleyv. Fitzsimmons, 20 F.3d 789, 797 (7th dr. 1994); Moran v. Clarke, 296 F.3d 638, 646-647 (8th Cir.2002,Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070, 1074-75 (9th Cir. 2001); Pierce v. Gilchrist, 359 F.3d 1279, 1285 (10th dr. 2004); Rowe v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 279 F.3d 1271, 1281 (11th Cir. 2002); see also Riley v. Hessenflow, No. 11-04253-CV-C-NKL (W.D.Mo. Jan. 10, 2013).
Not to be forgotten is that in order to recover damages under ß1983, the conviction or sentence must be reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such a determination or called into question by the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-82 (2009). The elimination of probable cause as a defense is quite critical because the government can often demonstrate sufficient undisputed facts to warrant summary judgment disposition.
To succeed in a ß 1983 claim, a plaintiff must prove two essential elements: "(1) that the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under the color of state law; and (2) that the conduct deprived the plaintiff of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States." Schneyder v. Smith, 653 F.3d 313, 319 (3d Cir. 2011). This article focuses upon the second element in the context of whether the subject conduct violates Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment rights.
In Halsey, the plaintiff was charged, convicted and imprisoned based upon police officers' fabrication of evidence. The prosecutor instrumental in the initiation of the criminal case acknowledged that Halsey's falsified confession contributed to his decision to charge the plaintiff, who was sentenced to prison for two life terms. After 22 years in jail he was released because his innocence was established "beyond all doubt." His 42 U.S.C. ß 1983 and state-law based claims followed.
Halsey fails to distinguish the nuances between a seizure under the Fourth Amendment and a due process violation under the Fourteenth Amendment, leaving open just how much an arrested defendant must endure before a stand-alone, substantive due process claim accrues. For example, must a lengthy pre- or post-trial detention, conviction and imprisonment occur, or are arrest and submission to arraignment and/or other pretrial procedures sufficient? Put another way, the question remains just exactly when an unlawful Fourth Amendment seizure ends and a substantive due process claim begins.
False evidence only violates a criminal defendant's due process rights if it is "used to deprive the defendant of... liberty in some way." Whitlock v. Brueggeman, 682 F.3d 567, 580 (7th dr. 2012) ("We have consistently held that a police officer who manufactures false evidence against a criminal defendant violates due process if that evidence is later used to deprive the defendant of... liberty in some way.").
Indeed, "[l]iberty from bodily restraint always has been recognized as the core of the liberty protected by Due Process Clause ...." Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1 , 18 (1979). Even "the right to release from initially lawful detention is based upon the substantive component of the Due Process Clause, rather than the Fourth Amendment." Golberg v. Hennepin County, 417 F.3d 808, 811 (8th Cir. 2005).
Post-arrest detention, and the criminal process such as bail, arraignment, a probable cause hearing, discovery and all of the concerns which are the natural result of awaiting trial or dismissal, are all stigmatizing, emotionally-scarring events, no matter what the length of post-arrest detention. "The Fourteenth Amendment... include[s] liberty of the mind as well as liberty of action." Palko v. State of Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 327 (1937).
Hankin is a partner with Hankin, Sandman, Palladino & Weintrob in Atlantic City, New Jersey.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.