Court Opinion

ID: 9427665
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:21:32.67952+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:08.922743
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Marshall,
dissenting.
While I join the dissenting opinion of my Brother Stevens, I would add one or two additional words. As I view this case, neither "negligence” nor “mere negligence” is involved. Respondent was arrested and not released. This constituted intentional action and not, under these circumstances, negligence. For despite respondent’s repeated protests of misiden-tification, as well as information possessed by the Potter County sheriff suggesting that the name in the arrest warrant was incorrect, see post, at 151 (Stevens, J., dissenting), petitioner and his deputies made absolutely no effort for eight days to determine whether they were holding an innocent man in violation of his constitutionally protected rights.