Court Opinion

ID: 9473134
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 04:20:25.055453+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:43:20.515462
License: Public Domain

CUDAHY, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I agree that Sheriff Frantz was, on the particular facts of this case, shielded by qualified immunity. The duty in question is the duty either to take the prisoner before a magistrate or to release him.
I disagree with the majority opinion in that I think that there was a clear duty— reasonably known to the Sheriff — to take Coleman promptly before the court. The only problem with this theory of liability is that the Sheriff apparently did all he could to fulfill this duty, but, without the support of a prosecutor and the acquiescence of a judicial officer, there was nothing he could do.
A much more plausible theory may be based on Frantz’s alternative duty to release the prisoner if he could not be brought before a judicial officer. Here, I disagree with the dissent: there was at the time no sufficiently clear and established duty, known to Frantz, to release the prisoner within 18 days if it was impossible to present him to a judge or magistrate. In light of the court’s decision today, of course, there should no longer be any doubt about this aspect of the duty.