Opinion ID: 397111
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Continued Detention after the Second Arrest

Text: 44 We address briefly the district court's holding with respect to Powe's continued detention by the Chicago police for many hours after they became aware that he was not the intended arrestee. The district court held that (a) claim for this deprivation of liberty or due process by the City is not cognizable under Baker v. McCollan, supra, if the arrest itself is proper. We have serious reservations about this rationale. The Baker Court held that, after a valid arrest pursuant to a valid warrant, the continued detention of the arrestee until it was discovered that he was not the person sought, was perfectly valid, even though such detention lasted several days. Nothing in Baker compels the conclusion that the validity of the arrest renders utterly unassailable the continued detention of the arrestee after it is discovered that he is not the person sought. We need not and do not decide this issue, however, because we are satisfied that this part of the district court's holding should be affirmed, albeit on different grounds. 45 Even assuming arguendo that the continued detention amounted to a deprivation of liberty without due process of law, Powe may not maintain a suit against the City for the continued detention because his complaint does not adequately allege policy within the meaning of Monell. The complaint contains no direct allegation that the Chicago Police Department regularly, as a matter of practice, detains arrestees for an unreasonable time after it is clear that there is no longer any cause to hold them. Nor, as we discussed in Part II B, supra, can we draw any such inference from the allegation of a single incident of undue detention. See ante, at 650-51, and cases cited therein. We conclude that Powe has not made out a claim against the City of Chicago for his continued detention on the occasion of his second arrest.