Source: http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/County_of_Riverside_v_McLaughlin_500_US_44_111_S_Ct_1661_114_L_Ed
Timestamp: 2013-12-10 12:24:58
Document Index: 452439490

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 76', '§ 76', '§ 134', 'art, 213', '§ 14', 'art, 653', '§ 310', 'art, 213', 'art, 653']

County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44, 111 S. Ct. 1661, 114 L. Ed. 2d 49 (1991), Court Opinion
O'CONNOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST, C. J., and WHITE, KENNEDY, and SOUTER, JJ., joined. MARSHALL, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BLACKMUN and STEVENS, JJ., joined, post, p. 59. SCALIA, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 59.[***57] Timothy T. Coates argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Peter J. Ferguson, Michael A. Bell, and Martin Stein.
In light of the pending motion to dismiss, the District Court continued the hearing on the motion to certify the class. Various papers were submitted; then, in July 1988, the District Court accepted for filing a second amended complaint, which is the operative pleading here. From the record it appears that the District Court never explicitly ruled on defendants' motion to dismiss, but rather took it off the court's calendar in August 1988.[*49] The second amended complaint named three additional plaintiffs -- Johnny E. James, Diana Ray Simon, and Michael Scott Hyde -- individually and as class representatives. The amended complaint alleged that each of the named plaintiffs had been arrested without a warrant, had received neither a prompt probable cause nor a bail hearing, and was still in custody. 1 App. 3. In November 1988, the District Court certified a class comprising "all present and future prisoners in the Riverside County Jail including those pretrial detainees arrested without warrants and held in the Riverside County Jail from August 1, 1987 to the present, and all such future detainees who have been or may be denied prompt probable cause, bail or arraignment hearings." 1 App. 7.
On November 8, 1989, the Court of Appeals affirmed the order granting the preliminary injunction against Riverside County. One aspect of the injunction against San Bernardino County was reversed by the Court of Appeals; that determination is not before us.[*50] The Court of Appeals rejected Riverside County's Lyons-based standing argument, holding that the named plaintiffs had Article III standing to bring the class action for injunctive relief. 888 F. 2d, at 1277. It reasoned that, at the time plaintiffs filed their complaint, they were in custody and suffering injury as a result of defendants' allegedly unconstitutional action. The court then proceeded to the merits and determined that the County's policy [***59] of providing probable cause determinations at arraignment within 48 hours was "not in accord with Gerstein's requirement of a determination 'promptly after arrest'" because no more than 36 hours were needed "to complete the administrative steps incident to arrest." Id., at 1278.
In Gerstein, this Court held unconstitutional Florida procedures under which persons [**1668] arrested without a warrant could remain in police custody for 30 days or more without a judicial determination of probable cause. In reaching this conclusion we attempted to reconcile important competing interests. On the one hand, States have a strong interest in protecting public safety by taking into custody those persons who are reasonably suspected of having engaged in criminal activity, even where there has been no opportunity for a prior judicial determination of probable cause. 420 U. S., at 112. On the other hand, prolonged detention based on incorrect or unfounded suspicion may unjustly "imperil [a] suspect's job, interrupt his source of income, and impair his family relationships." Id., at 114. We sought to balance these competing concerns by holding that States "must provide a fair and reliable determination of probable cause as a condition for any significant pretrial restraint of liberty, and this determination must be made by a judicial officer either before or promptly after arrest." Id., at 125 (emphasis added).[*53] The Court thus established a "practical compromise" between the rights of individuals and the realities of law enforcement. Id., at 113. Under Gerstein, warrantless arrests are permitted but persons arrested without a warrant must promptly be brought before a neutral magistrate for a judicial determination of probable cause. Id., at 114. Significantly, the Court stopped short of holding that jurisdictions were constitutionally compelled to provide a probable cause [***61] hearing immediately upon taking a suspect into custody and completing booking procedures. We acknowledged the burden that proliferation of pretrial proceedings places on the criminal justice system and recognized that the interests of everyone involved, including those persons who are arrested, might be disserved by introducing further procedural complexity into an already intricate system. Id., at 119-123. Accordingly, we left it to the individual States to integrate prompt probable cause determinations into their differing systems of pretrial procedures. Id., at 123-124.
In so doing, we gave proper deference to the demands of federalism. We recognized that "state systems of criminal procedure vary widely" in the nature and number of pretrial procedures they provide, and we noted that there is no single "preferred" approach. Id., at 123. We explained further that "flexibility and experimentation by the States" with respect to integrating probable cause determinations was desirable and that each State should settle upon an approach "to accord with [the] State's pretrial procedure viewed as a whole." Ibid. Our purpose in Gerstein was to make clear that the Fourth Amendment requires every State to provide prompt determinations of probable cause, but that the Constitution does not impose on the States a rigid procedural framework. Rather, individual States may choose to comply in different ways.
Inherent in Gerstein's invitation to the States to experiment and adapt was the recognition that the Fourth Amendment does not compel an immediate determination of probable [*54] cause upon completing the administrative steps incident to arrest. Plainly, if a probable cause hearing is constitutionally compelled the moment a suspect is finished being "booked," there is no room whatsoever for "flexibility and experimentation by the States." Ibid. Incorporating probable cause determinations "into the procedure for setting bail or fixing other conditions of pretrial release" -- which Gerstein explicitly contemplated, id., at 124--would be impossible. Waiting even a few hours so that a bail hearing or arraignment could take place at the same time as the probable cause determination would amount to a constitutional violation. Clearly, Gerstein is not that inflexible.[**1669] Notwithstanding Gerstein's discussion of flexibility, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that no flexibility was permitted. It construed Gerstein as "requir[ing] a probable cause determination to be made as soon as the administrative steps incident to arrest were completed, and that such steps should require only a brief period." 888 F. 2d, at 1278 (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted). This same reading is advanced by the dissents. See post, at 59 (opinion of MARSHALL, J.); post, at 61-63, 65 (opinion of SCALIA, J.). The foregoing discussion readily demonstrates the error of this approach. Gerstein held that probable cause determinations must be prompt -- not immediate. The Court explained that "flexibility and experimentation" were "desirab[le]"; that "[t]here is no single preferred pretrial procedure"; and that "the nature of the probable cause determination usually will be shaped to accord with a State's pretrial procedure viewed as a whole." [***62] 420 U. S., at 123. The Court of Appeals and JUSTICE SCALIA disregard these statements, relying instead on selective quotations from the Court's opinion. As we have explained, Gerstein struck a balance between competing interests; a proper understanding of the decision is possible only if one takes into account both sides of the equation.
Our task in this case is to [***63] articulate more clearly the boundaries of what is permissible under the Fourth Amendment. Although we hesitate to announce that the Constitution compels a specific time limit, it is important to provide some degree of certainty so that States and counties may establish procedures with confidence that they fall within constitutional bounds. [1] Taking into account the competing interests articulated in Gerstein, we believe that a jurisdiction that provides judicial determinations of probable cause within 48 hours of arrest will, as a general matter, comply with the promptness requirement of Gerstein. For this reason, such jurisdictions will be immune from systemic challenges.
[2] This is not to say that the probable cause determination in a particular case passes constitutional muster simply because it is provided within 48 hours. Such a hearing may nonetheless violate Gerstein if the arrested individual can prove that his or her probable cause determination was delayed unreasonably. Examples of unreasonable delay are delays for the purpose of gathering additional evidence to justify the arrest, a delay motivated by ill will against the arrested individual, or delay for delay's sake. In evaluating whether the delay in a particular case is unreasonable, however, courts must allow a substantial degree of flexibility. Courts cannot ignore the [*57] often unavoidable delays in transporting arrested persons from one facility to another, handling late-night bookings where no magistrate is readily available, obtaining the presence of an arresting officer who may be busy processing other suspects or securing the premises of an arrest, and other practical realities.
[3] Where an arrested individual does not receive a probable cause determination within 48 hours, the calculus changes. In such a case, the arrested individual does not bear the burden of proving an unreasonable delay. Rather, the burden shifts to the government to demonstrate the existence of a bona fide emergency or other extraordinary circumstance. The fact that in a particular case it may take longer than 48 hours to consolidate pretrial proceedings does not qualify as an extraordinary circumstance. Nor, for that matter, do intervening weekends. A jurisdiction that chooses to offer combined proceedings must do so as soon as is reasonably feasible, but in no event later than 48 hours after arrest.
The issue before us today is of precisely that sort. As we have recently had occasion to explain, the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of "unreasonable seizures," insofar as it applies to seizure of the person, preserves for our citizens the traditional protections against unlawful arrest afforded by the common law. See California v. Hodari D., 499 U. S. 621 (1991)[*61] . One of those -- one of the most important of those -- was that a [***66] person arresting a suspect without a warrant must deliver the arrestee to a magistrate "as soon as he reasonably can." 2 M. Hale, Pleas of the Crown 95, n. 13 (1st Am. ed. 1847). See also 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *289, *293; Wright v. Court, 107 Eng. Rep. 1182 (K. B. 1825) ("[I]t is the duty of a person arresting any one on suspicion of felony to take him before a justice as soon as he reasonably can"); 1 R. Burn, Justice of the Peace 276-277 (1837) ("When a constable arrests a party for treason or felony, he must take him before a magistrate to be examined as soon as he reasonably can") (emphasis omitted). The practice in the United States was the same. See, e. g., 5 Am. Jur. 2d, Arrest §§ 76, 77 (1962); Venable v. Huddy, 77 N. J. L. 351, 72 A. 10, 11 (1909); Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Hinsdell, 76 Kan. 74, 76, 90 P. 800, 801 (1907); Ocean S. S. Co. v. Williams, 69 Ga. 251, 262 (1883); Johnson v. Mayor and City Council of Americus, 46 Ga. 80, 86-87 (1872); Low v. Evans, 16 Ind. 486, 489 (1861); Tubbs v. Tukey, 57 Mass. 438, 440 (1849) (warrant); Perkins, The Law of Arrest, 25 IowaL. Rev. 201, 254 (1940). Cf. Pepper v. Mayes, 81 Ky. 673 (1884). It was clear, moreover, that the only element bearing upon the reasonableness of delay was not such circumstances as the pressing need to conduct further investigation, but the arresting officer's ability, once the prisoner had been secured, to reach a magistrate who could issue the needed warrant for further detention. 5 Am. Jur. 2d, Arrest, supra, §§ 76, 77; 1 Restatement of Torts § 134, Comment b (1934); Keefe v. Hart, 213 Mass. 476, 482, 100 N. E. 558, 559 (1913); Leger v. Warren, 57 N. E. 506, 508 (Ohio 1900); Burk v. Howley, 179 Pa. 539, 551, 36 A. 327, 329 (1897); Kirk & Son v. Garrett, 84 Md. 383, 405, 35 A. 1089, 1091 (1896); Simmons v. Vandyke, 138 Ind. 380, 384, 37 N. E. 973, 974 (1894) (dictum); Ocean S. S. Co. v. Williams, supra, at 263; Hayes v. Mitchell, 69 Ala. 452, 455 (1881); Kenerson v. Bacon, 41 Vt. 573, 577 (1869); Green v. Kennedy, 48 N. Y. 653, 654 (1871)[*62] ; Schneider v. McLane, 3 Keyes 568 (NY App. 1867); Annot., 51 L. R. A. 216 (1901). Cf. Wheeler v. Nesbitt, 24 How. 544, 552 (1860). Any detention beyond the period within which a warrant could have been obtained rendered the officer liable for false imprisonment. See, e. g., Twilley v. Perkins, 77 Md. 252, 265, 26 A. 286, 289 (1893)[**1673] ; Wiggins v. Norton, 83 Ga. 148, 152, 9 S. E. 607, 608-609 (1889); Brock v. Stimson, 108 Mass. 520 (1871); Annot., 98 A. L. R. 2d 966 (1964).1
Of course even if the implication of the dictum in Gerstein were what the Court says, that would be poor reason for keeping a wrongfully arrested citizen in jail contrary to the clear dictates of the Fourth Amendment. What is most revealing of the frailty of today's opinion is that it relies upon nothing but that implication from a dictum, plus its own ([***69] quite irrefutable because entirely value laden) "balancing" of the competing demands of the individual and the State. With respect to the point at issue here, different times and different places--even highly liberal times and places--have struck that balance in different ways. Some Western democracies currently permit the executive a period of detention without impartially adjudicated cause. In England, for example, the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1989, §§ 14(4), 5, permits suspects to be held without presentation [**1675] and without charge for seven days. 12 Halsbury's Stat. 1294 (4th ed. 1989). [*66] It was the purpose of the Fourth Amendment to put this matter beyond time, place, and judicial predilection, incorporating the traditional common-law guarantees against unlawful arrest. The Court says not a word about these guarantees, and they are determinative. Gerstein's approval of a "brief period" of delay to accomplish "administrative steps incident to an arrest" is already a questionable extension of the traditional formulation, though it probably has little practical effect and can perhaps be justified on de minimis grounds.2 To expand Gerstein, however, into an authorization for 48-hour detention related neither to the obtaining of a magistrate nor the administrative "completion" of the arrest seems to me utterly unjustified. Mr. McLaughlin was entitled to have a prompt impartial determination that there was reason to deprive him of his liberty--not according to a schedule that suits the State's convenience in piggybacking various proceedings, but as soon as his arrest was completed and the magistrate could be procured.
With one exception, no federal court considering the question has regarded 24 hours as an inadequate amount of time to complete arrest [***71] procedures, and with the same exception every court actually setting a limit for a probable-cause determination based on those procedures has selected 24 hours. (The exception would not count Sunday within the 24-hour limit.) See Bernard v. Palo Alto, 699 F. 2d, at 1025; McGill v. Parsons, 532 F. 2d 484, 485 (CA5 1976); Sanders v. Houston, 543 F. Supp., at 701-703; Lively v. Cullinane, 451 F. Supp., at 1003-1004. Cf. Dommer v. Hatcher, 427 F. Supp. 1040, 1046 (ND Ind. 1975) (24-hour maximum; 48 if Sunday included), rev'd in part, 653 F. 2d 289 (CA7 1981). See also Gramenos v. Jewel Companies, Inc., 797 F. 2d, at 437 (four hours "requires explanation"); Brandes, Post-Arrest Detention and the Fourth Amendment: Refining the Standard of Gerstein v. Pugh, 22 Colum. J. L. & Soc. Prob. 445, 474-475 (1989). Federal courts have reached a similar conclusion in applying Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5(a), which requires presentment before a federal magistrate "without unnecessary delay." See, e. g., Thomas, The Poisoned Fruit of Pretrial Detention, 61 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 413, 450, n. 238 (1986) (citing cases). And state courts have similarly applied a 24-hour limit under state statutes requiring presentment without "unreasonable delay." New York, for example, has concluded that no more than 24 hours is necessary from arrest to arraignment, People ex rel. Maxian v. Brown, 164 App. Div. 2d, at 62-64, 561 N. Y. S. 2d, at 421-422. Twenty-nine States have statutes similar to New York's, which require either presentment or arraignment "without unnecessary delay" or "forthwith"; eight States explicitly require presentment or arraignment within 24 hours; and only seven States have statutes explicitly permitting a period longer than 24 hours. Brandes, supra, at 478, n. 230. Since the States requiring a probable-cause hearing within 24 hours include both New York and Alaska, it is unlikely that circumstances of population or geography demand a longer period. Twenty-four hours is consistent with the American Law Institute's Model Code. ALI, Model Code of Pre-Arraignment Procedure § 310.1 (1975). And while the American [**1677] Bar Association in its proposed rules of criminal procedure initially required that presentment simply be [*70] made "without unnecessary delay," it has recently concluded that no more than six hours should be required, except at night. Uniform Rules of Criminal Procedure, 10 U. L. A. App., Criminal Justice Standard 10-4.1 (Spec. Pamph. 1987). Finally, the conclusions of these commissions and judges, both state and federal, are supported by commentators who have examined the question. See, e. g., Brandes, supra, at 478-485 (discussing national 24-hour rule); Note, 74 Minn. L. Rev., at 207-209.
In my view, absent extraordinary circumstances, it is an "unreasonable seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment for the police, having arrested a suspect without a warrant, to delay a determination of probable cause for the arrest either (1) for reasons unrelated to arrangement of the probable-cause determination or completion of the steps incident to arrest, or (2) beyond 24 hours after the arrest. Like the Court, I would treat the time limit as a presumption; when the 24 hours are exceeded the burden shifts to the police to adduce unforeseeable circumstances justifying the additional delay.[***72] * * *
fn* Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the State of California by John K. Van de Kamp, Attorney General, Richard B. Iglehart, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Harley D. Mayfield, Senior Assistant Attorney General, and Robert M. Foster and Frederick R. Millar, Jr., Supervising Deputy Attorneys General; and for the District Attorney, County of Riverside, California, by Grover C. Trask II, pro se.
Briefs of amici curiae were filed for the State of Hawaii et al. by Warren Price III, Attorney General of Hawaii, and Steven S. Michaels, Deputy Attorney General, Don Siegelman, Attorney General of Alabama, Ron Fields, Attorney General of Arkansas, John J. Kelly, Chief State's Attorney of Connecticut, Charles M. Oberly III, Attorney General of Delaware, James T. Jones, Attorney General of Idaho, Neil F. Hartigan, Attorney General of Illinois, Linley E. Pearson, Attorney General of Indiana, James E. Tierney, Attorney General of Maine, Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General of Michigan, Mike Moore, Attorney General of Mississippi, Marc Racicot, Attorney General of Montana, Robert M. Spire, Attorney General of Nebraska, Robert J. Del Tufo, Attorney General of New Jersey, John P. Arnold, Attorney General of New Hampshire, Hal Siratton, Attorney General of New Mexico, Brian McKay, Attorney General of Nevada, Lacy H. Thornburg, Attorney General of North Carolina, Robert H. Henry, Attorney General of Oklahoma, T. Travis Medlock, Attorney General of South Carolina, Roger A. Tellinghuisen, Attorney General of South Dakota, Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General of Vermont, and Joseph P. Meyer, Attorney General of Wyoming; for the County of Los Angeles et al. by De Witt W. Clinton and Dixon M. Holston; for the California District Attorneys Association by Michael R. Capizzi; and for the Youth Law Center by Mark I. Soler and Loren M. Warboys.
fn1 The Court dismisses reliance upon the common law on the ground that its "vague admonition" to the effect that "an arresting officer must bring a person arrested without a warrant before a judicial officer 'as soon as he reasonably can'" provides no more support than does Gerstein v. Pugh's, 420 U. S. 103 (1975), "promptly after arrest" language for the "inflexible standard" that I propose. Ante, at 55. This response totally confuses the present portion of my opinion, which addresses the constitutionally permissible reasons for delay, with Part II below, which addresses (no more inflexibly, I may say, than the Court's 48-hour rule) the question of an outer time limit. The latter -- how much time, given the functions the officer is permitted to complete beforehand, constitutes "as soon as he reasonably can" or "promptly after arrest" -- is obviously a function not of the common law but of helicopters and telephones. But what those delay-legitimating functions are -- whether, for example, they include further investigation of the alleged crime or (as the Court says) "mixing" the probable-cause hearing with other proceedings -- is assuredly governed by the common law, whose admonition on the point is not at all "vague": Only the function of arranging for the magistrate qualifies. The Court really has no response to this. It simply rescinds the common-law guarantee.
fn2 Ordinarily, I think, there would be plenty of time for "administrative steps" while the arrangements for a hearing are being made. But if, for example, a magistrate is present in the precinct and entertaining probable-cause hearings at the very moment a wrongfully arrested person is brought in, I see no basis for intentionally delaying the hearing in order to subject the person to a cataloging of his personal effects, fingerprinting, photographing, etc. He ought not be exposed to those indignities if there is no proper basis for constraining his freedom of movement, and if that can immediately be determined.
fn3 The Court claims that the Court of Appeals "concluded that it takes 36 hours to process arrested persons in Riverside County." Ante, at 57. The court concluded no such thing. It concluded that 36 hours (the time limit imposed by the District Court) was "ample" time to complete the arrest, 888 F. 2d 1276, 1278 (CA9 1989), and that the county had provided no evidence to demonstrate the contrary. The District Court, in turn, had not made any evidentiary finding to the effect that 36 hours was necessary, but for unexplained reasons said that it "declines to adopt the 24 hour standard [generally applied by other courts], but adopts a 36 hour limit, except in exigent circumstances." McLaughlin v. County of Riverside, No. CV87-5597 RG (CD Cal., Apr. 19, 1989). 2 App. 332. Before this Court, moreover, the county has acknowledged that "nearly 90 percent of all cases . . . can be completed in 24 hours or less," Brief for District Attorney, County of Riverside, as Amicus Curiae 16, and the examples given to explain the other 10 percent are entirely unpersuasive (heavy traffic on the southern California freeways; the need to wait for arrestees who are properly detainable because they are visibly under the influence of drugs to come out of that influence before they can be questioned about other crimes; the need to take blood and urine samples promptly in drug cases) with one exception: awaiting completion of investigations and filing of investigation reports by various state and federal agencies. Id., at 16-17. We have long held, of course, that delaying a probable-cause determination for the latter reason -- effecting what Judge Posner has aptly called "imprisonment on suspicion, while the police look for evidence to confirm their suspicion," Llaguno v. Mingey, 763 F. 2d 1560, 1568 (CA7 1985) -- is improper. See Gerstein, 420 U. S., at 120, n. 21, citing Mallory v. United States, 354 U. S. 449, 456 (1957).
Table of CasesGerstein v. Pugh, 420 U. S. 103 (1975)Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U. S. 95 (1983)McLaughlin v. County of Riverside, 888 F. 2d 1276 (1989)Llaguno v. Mingey, 763 F. 2d 1560, 1567-1568 (CA7 1985)Fisher v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 690 F. 2d 1133, 1139-1141 (CA4 1982)Williams v. Ward, 845 F. 2d 374, 386 (1988), cert. denied, 488 U. S. 1020 (1989)Allen v. Wright, 468 U. S. 737, 751 (1984)Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U. S. 464, 472 (1982)Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393 (1975)Schall v. Martin, 467 U. S. 253, 256, n. 3 (1984)United States Parole Comm'n v. Geraghty, 445 U. S. 388, 399 (1980)Swisher v. Brady, 438 U. S. 204, 213-214, n. 11 (1978)McLaughlin v. County of Riverside, 888 F. 2d 1276 (CA9 1989)Bernard v. Palo Alto, 699 F. 2d 1023 (CA9 1983)Sanders v. Houston, 543 F. Supp. 694 (SD Tex. 1982), aff'd, 741 F. 2d 1379 (CA5 1984)Lively v. Cullinane, 451 F. Supp. 1000 (DC 1978)Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U. S. 103 (1975)Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973)Maryland v. Craig, 497 U. S. 836 (1990)Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U. S. 103 (1975)California v. Hodari D., 499 U. S. 621 (1991)Venable v. Huddy, 77 N. J. L. 351, 72 A. 10, 11 (1909)Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Hinsdell, 76 Kan. 74, 76, 90 P. 800, 801 (1907)Ocean S. S. Co. v. Williams, 69 Ga. 251, 262 (1883)Johnson v. Mayor and City Council of Americus, 46 Ga. 80, 86-87 (1872)Low v. Evans, 16 Ind. 486, 489 (1861)Tubbs v. Tukey, 57 Mass. 438, 440 (1849)Pepper v. Mayes, 81 Ky. 673 (1884)Keefe v. Hart, 213 Mass. 476, 482, 100 N. E. 558, 559 (1913)Leger v. Warren, 57 N. E. 506, 508 (Ohio 1900)Burk v. Howley, 179 Pa. 539, 551, 36 A. 327, 329 (1897)Kirk & Son v. Garrett, 84 Md. 383, 405, 35 A. 1089, 1091 (1896)Simmons v. Vandyke, 138 Ind. 380, 384, 37 N. E. 973, 974 (1894)Hayes v. Mitchell, 69 Ala. 452, 455 (1881)Kenerson v. Bacon, 41 Vt. 573, 577 (1869)Green v. Kennedy, 48 N. Y. 653, 654 (1871)Wheeler v. Nesbitt, 24 How. 544, 552 (1860)Twilley v. Perkins, 77 Md. 252, 265, 26 A. 286, 289 (1893)Wiggins v. Norton, 83 Ga. 148, 152, 9 S. E. 607, 608-609 (1889)Brock v. Stimson, 108 Mass. 520 (1871)Gramenos v. Jewel Companies, Inc., 797 F. 2d 432, 437 (CA7 1986), cert. denied, 481 U. S. 1028 (1987)Bernard v. Palo Alto, 699 F. 2d 1023, 1025 (CA9 1983) (per curiam)Fisher v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 690 F. 2d 1133, 1140 (CA4 1982)Mabry v. County of Kalamazoo, 626 F. Supp. 912, 914 (WD Mich. 1986)Sanders v. Houston, 543 F. Supp. 694, 699-701 (SD Tex. 1982), aff'd, 741 F. 2d 1379 (CA5 1984)Lively v. Cullinane, 451 F. Supp. 1000, 1004. (DC 1978)People ex rel. Maxian v. Brown, 164 App. Div. 2d 56, 62-64, 561 N. Y. S. 2d 418, 421-422 (1990), aff'd, 77 N. Y. 2d 422 (1991)Williams v. Ward, 845 F. 2d 374 (CA2 1988), cert. denied, 488 U. S. 1020 (1989)McGill v. Parsons, 532 F. 2d 484, 485 (CA5 1976)Dommer v. Hatcher, 427 F. Supp. 1040, 1046 (ND Ind. 1975) , rev'd in part, 653 F. 2d 289 (CA7 1981)Gerstein v. Pugh's, 420 U. S. 103 (1975)Llaguno v. Mingey, 763 F. 2d 1560, 1568 (CA7 1985)Mallory v. United States, 354 U. S. 449, 456 (1957)