Ray v. City of Chicago
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 136
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Malinowski stopped Ray for operating a vehicle at night without headlights on Oct 17, 2008; officers found what they believed to be cocaine in Ray's car and arrested her; Ray was taken to a police station and detained for several hours before charges were filed and later dropped; Ray sued the City of Chicago and Malinowski alleging Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment violations and a challenge to the Chicago ordinance; the district court dismissed the complaint for failure to plead adequate facts; Ray appealed the dismissal; the City impounded Ray's vehicle pursuant to Chicago ordinance 7-24-225 and Ray contested the DOAH ruling at a later administrative hearing; Ray sought review under Illinois Administrative Review Act alleging unconstitutionality of the ordinance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arrest and post-arrest detention Fourth Amendment. | Ray contends lack of probable cause and unreasonably long detention. | Malinowski had probable cause to arrest for a traffic violation; detention was permissible to complete arrest-related administrative steps. | Arrest valid; detention not unreasonably long under the record. |
| Malicious prosecution claim viability. | Ray alleges the drugs were planted and seeks a federal malicious prosecution claim. | Such claims are not ordinarily cognizable in federal court; state law provides the remedy; the Brady framing fails since charges were dropped at first appearance. | District court correct; no federal malicious prosecution claim, and Illinois law provides the remedy in state court. |
| Section 7-24-225 challenge and DOAH review. | Ray challenges the constitutionality of the ordinance and DOAH findings; seeks judicial review of DOAH. | District court properly relied on plaintiff's complaint; administrative record may be judicially noticed; no adequate factual allegations to show unconstitutionality. | District court's dismissal affirmed; complaint insufficient to show unconstitutional ordinance or arbitrary DOAH finding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (U.S. 2001) (probable cause for arrest allows seizure for minor offenses)
- United States v. Childs, 277 F.3d 947 (7th Cir. 2002) (probable cause suffices for arrest even for minor offenses)
- Chortek v. City of Milwaukee, 356 F.3d 740 (7th Cir. 2004) (brief detention after arrest is permissible for administrative steps)
- Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (U.S. 1975) (probable cause and pretrial procedures for arrestees)
- Bonte v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 624 F.3d 461 (7th Cir. 2010) (pleading standard requiring plausible claims after Iqbal and Twombly)
- Bielanski v. Kane, 550 F.3d 632 (7th Cir. 2008) (intent in pleading requirements; continuing relevance to Rule 12(b)(6) analysis)