Aleman v. Village of Hanover Park, 662 F.3d 897

Aleman operated a home day-care; Joshua Schrik, an 11-month-old in his care, collapsed on Sept. 9, 2005 and died days later.
Aleman was interrogated after Joshua’s collapse; he was arrested with Miranda rights triggered.
Micci and Villanueva questioned Aleman for hours, falsely telling him doctors supported a theory that he caused the injuries.
Carlson, Villanueva, and others charged Aleman with murder based on a disputed “confession” obtained during interrogation.
Evidence later showed the doctors’ opinions were misrepresented and the pathologist’s conclusions favored exonerating Aleman; the second arrest lacked probable cause.
The district court dismissed most Illinois-law claims; the Village wasn’t personally liable under Monell; the court granted summary judgment for most defendants, but reversed on several issues and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the second arrest violated the Fourth Amendment.	Aleman asserts lack of probable cause for the murder arrest.	Carlson argues probable cause existed based on available evidence.	Yes; second arrest violated the Fourth Amendment.
Whether the interrogation violated Miranda and Edwards principles.	Interrogation continued after invoking counsel and after misleading statements.	Officers believed Aleman had waived rights; invocation was ambiguous.	Miranda/Edwards violation; interrogation improper.
Whether the confession obtained during interrogation tainted the case for malicious-prosecution claims.	Confession was obtained through deceptive police conduct.	Confession evidence supported charges despite questions about methods.	Confession renderable as basis for charges; supports malicious-prosecution claim against Carlson/Micci.
Whether Carlson’s conduct can be shielded by qualified immunity.	Carlson acted without probable cause and with improper motive.	A reasonable officer could have believed probable cause existed at the time.	Carlson not shielded by qualified immunity for false arrest and malicious-prosecution claim.
Whether Village of Hanover Park can be held liable under Monell.	Village policy or custom caused constitutional violations.	Village not vicariously liable for constitutional violations absent a policy showing.	Village/Lussky/Fallon dismissed; Monell liability not shown.

Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1996) (probable cause standard governs stop; subjective intent irrelevant in stop context)
Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1981) (right to counsel requires counsel to be present before further interrogation after invocation)
Minnick v. Mississippi, 498 U.S. 146 (U.S. 1990) (counsel must be available; questioning cannot resume in absence of counsel after invocation)
Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412 (U.S. 1986) (police cannot imply rights; counsel must respond to invoke protection)
Sroga v. Weiglen, 649 F.3d 604 (7th Cir. 2011) (lack of probable cause supports Fourth Amendment claim in this context)
United States v. Lee, 413 F.3d 622 (7th Cir. 2005) (ambiguity of invocation; treated as effective under certain conditions)