Opinion ID: 1277454
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Federal Court's Use Of Baker v. McCollan [19]

Text: ¶ 16 Even assuming, as City argues, that issue preclusion avails on the probable-cause issue, summary judgment would not lie. Federal civil rights disputes brought under § 1983 do not afford protection against negligence in causing excessive restraint pending an arrestee's identification. For the latter harm the state common law affords the only remedy. [20] ¶ 17 According to Judge Russell's rulings, Salazar's redress for harm from his overlong detention is governed by Baker v. McCollan. [21] The plaintiff in Baker had been arrested pursuant to a facially valid warrant, then placed in custody and detained for three days. Although it was eventually determined that the plaintiff was innocent of the charge for which the warrant issued, there was no suggestion that the arrest itself was constitutionally deficient. The plaintiff's § 1983 action against the sheriff for depriving him of liberty without due process was based on the latter's failure timely to institute identification procedures that would have discovered the error. [22] The Court answered that [r]espondent's innocence of the charge contained in the warrant, while relevant to a tort claim of false imprisonment in most if not all jurisdictions, is largely irrelevant to his claim of deprivation of liberty without due process of law. [23] Suggested to the Court was the notion that allegations of simple negligence, actionable under state tort law, also would state a claim under § 1983. [24] Drawing a bright-line distinction between violations of rights protected by the [U.S.] Constitution and violations of duties of care arising out of [state] tort law, [25] the Court held that only federal constitutional violations are actionable under § 1983. [26] Baker's claim for false imprisonment, the Court concluded, simply did not rise to a constitutional dimension actionable in a § 1983 suit. [27] ¶ 18 According to Judge Russell's rulings, to succeed on one's federal constitutional claim for continued detention in the face of protestations of innocence, the evidentiary material must support an inference that the law enforcement personnel responsible for Salazar's three-day detention acted with deliberate indifference to his predicament, or with some reckless intent. [28] Because the evidentiary material did not allow that inference, Salazar's § 1983 claim could not stand. It is abundantly clear that Salazar's state-law tort for City's negligence that culminated in his wrongful detention must be allowed to survive the preclusion-anchored defense pressed by City. That claim does not invoke indifference required of a constitutional violation. It rests on want of ordinary care actionable under Oklahoma's common law of false imprisonment. Lastly, Salazar's state-law claim met with federal-court dismissal without reaching the merits.