Opinion ID: 4527838
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Cox and Freeman

Text: Cox alleged that he was arrested on March 1, 2018, and was detained until March 2, 2018 (1 day). Freeman was arrested on January 8, 2017, and detained until January 9, 2017 (1 day). The district court found that—irrespective of the validity of any subsequent probable cause determination—Cox and Freeman failed to state a claim because their detentions “lasted less than 48 hours.”1 It is true, as plaintiffs insist, that McLaughlin did not say that a detention of less than 48 hours can never violate the Fourth Amendment. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. at 56 (“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.”). But McLaughlin did say that a jurisdiction that provides a judicial probable cause determination within 48 hours complies with the promptness requirement of Gerstein, and “will be immune from systemic challenges.” Id. And, a particular plaintiff challenging the promptness of a determination made within 48 hours of arrest would have to “prove that his or her probable cause determination was delayed unreasonably.” Id. (“Examples of unreasonable delay are delays for the purpose of gathering additional evidence to justify the 1 Although not material to this appeal, the Affidavit of Complaint and warrant that the City provided to the district court appears to charge Cox with an offense committed on March 11, 2018, and purports to have been sworn to and signed on March 12, 2018. No. 19-6162 5 Cox, et al. v. City of Jackson, Tenn. arrest, a delay motivated by ill will against the arrested individual, or delay for delay’s sake.”) Here, Cox and Freeman did not allege that their probable cause determinations were unreasonably delayed for improper purposes; rather, they claim that the purportedly valid probable cause determination was defective. Nor can Cox and Freeman escape the presumption that their one-day detentions were constitutionally reasonable by arguing that Gerstein did not involve a detainee who never received a proper probable cause determination. This argument fundamentally misapprehends what Gerstein says the Fourth Amendment requires. That is, an officer’s probable cause determination will justify a warrantless arrest and a brief period of detention, but that detention may not be extended without a prompt judicial determination that there is probable cause to arrest. Gerstein, 420 U.S. at 113-14. If, as here, such a detention ends within a constitutionally reasonable period of time, it does not matter whether there was also a judicial determination of probable cause to arrest. The district court did not err in finding that the one-day detentions of Cox and Freeman could not state a Fourth Amendment claim based on the alleged defects in the post-arrest warrants or Affidavits of Complaint. The district court’s dismissal of these claims is affirmed.2