*1 Northern District of Illinois resulted in sei- though
zures even the information support-
ing issuance of those warrants was on av-
erage older than the information support-
ing the warrant Batchelder’s case.
Ideally, government ap- should have
plied for a warrant immediately after seiz-
ing the Nonetheless, business records. understandable, light of the nation- scope
wide investigation of this
numerous uncovered, business records searches not carried out immedi-
ately after the evidence was discovered. magistrate here made a common-sense
determination based on the information
contained application. We agree despite age of the business records on,
relied probable there was justify- cause
ing the issuance of a warrant.
We have considered the other issues that
appellant raised has conclude that
are entirely lacking in merit and do not
require comment.
Affirmed.
Dwayne CLARK, al., et
Plaintiffs-Appellants, MAURER, al.,
James et
Defendants-Appellees. States
United
Submitted June 1987.
566 in this under suit
tors. The claim 1983, judge the district 42 U.S.C. § (see state a claim for failure to dismissed de- 12(b)(6)), firing Fed.R.Civ.P. liberty by occupational prived them of em- for future them as unfit ployment. an public employer fires
aWhen public accompaniment of employee to the wrongdoing, and the serious false, may be employer charges are employee of having deprived the liable for See, process of law. liberty without due 624, 97 S.Ct. e.g., Velger, Codd curiam). (1977) (per 882, 92 public, did not charges, though alleged employees; nor is it identify the release, nam without somehow plaintiffs, would ing any of the who identity to conveyed their readers have alone them. This omission knew complaint under require dismissal Page, F.2d County Du 715 Hadley v. Cir.1983), (7th addition but 1245 allege complaint fails false, appears and indeed charges are stating by essential truth concede their into were “intimidated” complaint timekeeper. The bribing the alleging def actionable does succeed allege a amation; does not a fortiori . Perry v. See the Constitution violation of Cir.1986) (7th FBI, F.2d 1304-05 781 (concurring opinion). Spingola, Joseph J. Spingola, Joseph J. ap only issue Ill., substantial plaintiffs-appellants. The
Ltd., Chicago, for request by the defendants' peal is raised Counsel, Miner, Corp. Acting H. Judson costs under fees double attorney’s and Ill., defendants-appellees. Chicago, appro request a is 38. Such Fed.R.Civ.P. frivolous, if the POSNER, appeal is CUDAHY, priate if the and Before way in which suit is One underlying not. FLAUM, Judges. Circuit can be frivolous POSNER, Judge. Circuit any arguable error identify fails to Morri Reis v. court’s decision. among 24 The were Cir.1986) (7th (per son, 113 bribing 807 F.2d a fired for garbagemen Chicago plaintiff curiam). The facts as known working as to show them city timekeeper investiga by reasonable and his counsel announced city when by tion, law as known them which de- firing in a research, a suit might make reasonable but did conduct garbagemen’s scribed filed; district but colorable of them. name suit, plaintiff and Tribune, court dismisses Chicago published was If, merits. must its lawyer reassess his the malefac- again without identification
567 so, they are done unable identify clerk within days, a any respect in which the court but erred statement of their appeal. costs on appeal, nevertheless the appeal ground- less and sanctions may be appropriate. CUDAHY, Judge, Circuit concurring in Jenkins, Morris v. F.2d part 681-82 dissenting part: (7th Cir.1987) (per curiam). That is this I problem have no with the merits but *3 appeal case. brief accuses the defend- take a different tack on agree sanctions. I ants of committed a “defamatory appeal may be frivolous the act,” but it does explain not how that is underlying suit is the lawsuit is possible the were not identi- thin and the appeal perhaps even thinner. fied; argues the matter, In however, this another district
plaintiffs are innocent of fraud but that the court in the same district oppo reached the unproved.” fraud “remains site on result a complaint brought by an other of the 24 dismissed garbagemen on The failure of appeal brief to the same facts and with the allega same confront the issue whether there can be tion. Reed v. Chicago, No. 84 C liability (N.D.ILL. 1985) Mar. (Parsons, J.) release and newspaper arti WESTLAW, [Available DCT database]. names, cle did not reveal their directly or That circumstance it extremely makes diffi indirectly, particularly serious because cult me agree before flagged by the issue was us is sanctionably frivolous. may There be dismissing which in complaint empha a thin line between appellate incompetency plaintiffs’ sized reputations “that the and appellate frivolity, but I per cannot publicly maligned by this myself suade here, that the defects whatev because identities publicly were never be, er they may fall on the side of frivolity. revealed.” The brief does not con I, therefore, with the respect, utmost front or contest this dispositive finding, but must dissent as to sanctions. merely inconsequently remarks that “it is reasonable to believe that these same plaintiffs’] continue person [the files,
nel a time waiting bomb explode
when sent prospective employer.” Un
til goes off, the time bomb injury will no reputations; sustain to their Murray JACOBSON, S. then, there would no be constitutional Plaintiff-Appellant, tort if the communication was made in con fidence. v. Bishop Wood, Cf. 348-49, 2074, 2079-80, 96 S.Ct. OF VILLAGE NORTHBROOK (1976). authority To the Hadley CORPORATION, MUNICIPAL plaintiffs counterpose only a district court Defendant-Appellee. that, decision rather than questioning the authority Hadley, merely fails to discuss significance of not United States identifying fired
employee in announcing event, firing; a district court Submitted June 1987.* cannot appeals a court of overrule decision. judgment affirmed, dismissal Rehearing Aug. 24, 1987. Denied sanctions, with circumstances
we have decided to limit double costs.
The defendants shall therefore submit
* briefs, preliminary After argument examination concluded helpful oral not be parties court tentatively notified the that it had to the court case. The notice