Ronnie L. Patrick v. Jasper County and Sheriff Terry Gilliland

COFFEY, bust,” facility “drug Before EASTERBROOK and the Lowell became RIPPLE, Judges. officials made ar- overcrowded and ISP Circuit Patrick and some rangements to transfer

COFFEY, Judge. Circuit detainees, including sixty eighty other Ritchie, Jail Rens- ap- Plaintiff-Appellant Ronnie Patrick selaer, Indiana, booking, fingerprinting, for grant- peals the order of district court photographing and criminal record “want- defendants-ap- ing summary judgment for deposition, Patrick stat- Indiana, ed” checks. In his County, pellees, Jasper booked, being he ed that while he was Terry Gillilandin this action tell the ISP offi- affirm. overheard Sheriff Gilliland filed under U.S.C. 1983. We Immediately pounds marijuana. "drug of an al thousand 1. The bust” the culmination Patrick, investigation large- prior extensive into a Ritchie and Bail- DEA/ISP to the arrival marijuana harvesting smuggling oper- residence, scale ey offi- at Lucas the undercover early Indiana. December ation in northern marijuana ton of from Lucas’s cers seized one law enforcement officers ne- undercover him, as well as three residence and arrested individuals, including gotiated Jack with several delivery. participating in the individuals other Bailey, delivery of sever- Lucas and Ollie him valid got without a arrest war- just off detainfed] cer “that [Gilliland] Prosecuting Attorney rant, probable legal cause or other basis” phone with [then- Prosecutor, Thomas of the fourth and fourteenth Fisher]. violation seventy- him says, ‘We can hold And he On amendments.5 December Jas- says, charges.’ without And two hours per County (“Jasper Gilliland Sheriff up some- we come with ‘By then should defendants”) County filed a motion for ” in the Jas- Patrick thing.’ was summary judgment, arguing they had that four per County approximately Jail for rights not violated Patrick’s constitutional but, (9:40 to p.m.), a.m. 1:15 due hours to because his four-hour detention in the Jas- overcrowding, requested Sheriff Gilliland per County unreasonably long. Jail was not facility. to After Gilli- transfer another his Further, argued Sheriff Gilliland that he necessary arrangements made land qualified immunity entitled to was because Rose, Jan Pat- County LaPorte with did clearly his conduct not violate estab- transported an ISP officer rick was law at the time of Patrick’s deten- lished LaPorte, Jail, in County LaPorte Finally, Jasper County argued that tion.6 Indiana, for an addition- where he was held it as judgment was entitled to a matter bail af- thirty-six al hours and released on present law Patrick had failed to because 12, Sunday, posting bond on December ter any question evidence on the of whether taken a Patrick not before 1982.2 allegedly deten- probable for determination magistrate an tion had been caused official filing of pending detain him cause to or Prosecu- custom forty charges during his hours formal Department. La- tor’s office and Sheriff’s probable cause "parte An confinement. ex (“LaPorte County Porte and Sheriff Rose 13, Monday, hearing was held on December defendants”) County had filed a similar County Prosecutor Jasper after the 30, 1987. motion November charging Pat- a criminal information filed 26, 1988, May grant- the district court dealing marijuana, in a Class C On rick with motion, in Ind.Code defendants’ felony Indiana. ed However, 48—4—10(b)(2). Jasper dep- finding that Patrick’s statement in his § 35— Judge Philip County Superior J. reiterating Court the conversation be- osition charge for lack of dismissed McGraw and the tween Sheriff Gilliland prosecutor’s probable cause and denied was inadmissible hear- County Prosecutor of warrant request for issuance that, event, in conversation say and arrest Patrick.3 policy or cus- insufficient to establish The part Jasper County. on the tom action filed 42 U.S.C. 1983 this could estab- further found: “Gilliland December the district court on County any un- lish Terry against Jasper County, Sheriff Gilli- Patrick.... land, individually capaci- and in his official Interrogatories, Answers Sheriff, Coun- ty LaPorte had County stated that Rose, ty individually Jan and Sheriff produced by prisoners duty accept County legal capacity as LaPorte his official enforce- government state law Sheriff,4 “unlawfully alleging they had federal Ritchie, detainees, May 1988. including these defendants Although ment for 2. other disposition appealed of his facility transported Patrick has to the LaPorte were Patrick, thus, against defendants number claims these the record does not reflect the actually them to the extent will discuss transferred. of individuals against claims relevant Jasper County. against Charges again were filed again lack of April but were dismissed for alleged claims several state law also 5. Patrick probable cause. defendants, are rele- none which appeal. vant to complaint, as defen- Patrick also named In his States, United the State Indiana dants the 815-17, Fitzgerald, Harlow offi- 6. See federal and state law enforcement various 2727, 2736-38, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 summary judg- granted district court cers. The in the LaPorte “the mini- also stated Jail was ment officials. necessary process the State Police to find asked mum of time Gilliland for Patrick due to over- jail another charges against Patrick and to conduct a that Patrick was transferred crowding and probable hearing.”9 Shortly after cause Patrick does not Jail. to LaPorte the trial court’s denial of their taken actions were dispute that Gilliland’s motion, the LaPorte de- Code 10-1-1-22 and pursuant to Indiana §§ accepted fendants offered and Patrick an was transferred with- 35-33-11-3. Patrick settlement in lieu of trial on out-of-court at hours of his arrival in four to six Patrick’s claims under section 1983. made statement Jail. appeals Patrick now the district court’s that Patrick could be held for by Gilliland grant summary judgment in favor of is irrelevant. Patrick seventy-two hours Jasper County, argu- and Sheriff Gilliland six hours at the held four to (1) deposition testimony ing that: Patrick’s Jail, and Patrick does not relating the conversation between the Jas- Instead, attempts dispute this. per County Prosecutor and Sheriff Gilliland policy joint via action a custom or establish (2) hearsay; was not the conversation be- and LaPorte Coun- between prosecutor tween the and Sheriff Gilliland claim, This, essence, ty. conspiracy in is a prosecutor in which the stated that Patrick to Amend has been and Patrick’s Motion seventy-two held for with- could be hours that basis. Patrick does not denied on filed, charges being out as well as Gilli- for four to six claim that his detention detaining transferring and land’s actions addition, he hours was excessive.!7! Patrick, policy constitute an official of Jas- requested dispute that Gilliland does per County meaning within the of 42 U.S.C. facility. to another that he be transferred 1983; (3) Patrick’s transfer § argue Certainly Patrick cannot LaPorte Jail was in violation of Jasper County authority to dic- thus, Indiana Code 35-33-11-3 § the LaPorte tate the actions of amounts to an unlawful transfer in viola- conspiracy Sheriff. Because his and/or fourth, tion of the fifth and fourteenth insufficient, policy custom or claims Jasper County amendments. and Sheriff Jasper County claims and Gilliland argue Gilliland that Patrick has failed to such, allega- also must fail. As Patrick’s ques- raise an issue of material fact on the an tions are insufficient to state unconstitu- length of whether the tion of his detention regards Jasper tional or custom as in the Jail was unconstitu- County rendering summary judgment ap- and, further, urge tional us to affirm the propriate.” finding district court’s that Patrick has States, 84-808, H Patrick v. United No. failed as a matter of law to establish that (N.D.Ind. 26, 1988).8 slip May op. at 19-20 his detention resulted an from unconstitu- however, denied the LaPorte Jasper County. tional or custom of summary judgment defendants’ outset, motion, At finding that we note that we re evidence grant the district record was insufficient to determine wheth- view de novo court’s thirty-six summary judgment er hours Patrick footnote, In a the court stated: "Given the 9. The district court also determined Sheriff undisputed immunity fact that Patrick was arrested at 4 qualified Rose was not entitled to individuals, along a.m. with 84 other it would light Pugh, because in of Gerstein v. be difficult for Patrick to contend that it was (1975), 43 L.Ed.2d 54 unreasonable for not to have Hatcher, F.Supp. Dommer v. 427 1042 processed all of the defendants before noon that (N.D.Ind. 1975), grounds part other rev'd day.” Crawford, sub nom. Dommer v. 653 289 Cir.1981), (7th regarding pretrial the law deten did 8. The district court not address Sheriff Gilli- clearly time tion was established at the qualified he land’s claim that was entitled to County facility. was incarcerated in LaPorte immunity. Gilliland has not raised this issue on Fitzgerald, supra, note 6. See Harlow thus, appeal; we will not address it in this opinion. REMC, v. Whitley County whether Beard 840 F.2d determine Cir.1988). With these genuine of material no issue there exists mind, guidelines in we turn to the merits are enti- whether the defendants fact and appeal. law. Fed. as a matter of tled to 56(c). R.Civ.P. II. reviewing grant judg “In prevail In order on his for Patrick ment, must the record and all view brought pursuant claim to 42 U.S.C. light drawn therefrom inferences 1983,10 “(1) establish must that: [he] party opposing favorable most (2) constitutionally protected right; held Diebold, United motion. See States right of this in violation deprived was] [he 654, 655, 993, 994, Inc., U.S. 82 S. Ct. Constitution; (3) in defendants Bowen, (1962); Illinois tentionally deprivation; caused this Cir.1986). How under the defendants acted color of [state] ever, a motion confronted with County, law.” v. Polk Donald summary judgment, party who bears (7th Cir.1988). Additionally, proof particular on a issue the burden hold liable under section pleading, rest on but must may not its 1983, that Patrick must demonstrate demonstrate, by specific affirmatively deprivation by “a was caused genu allegations, there is that factual ordinance, statement, policy regulation, or requires issue of material fact ine officially adopted promulgated decision and Catrett, 477 Corp. Celotex v. trial. See County’s] officers.” Monell v. New [the 2548, 2553, 317, 91 106 S. Ct. U.S. Services, City Dept. York Social 436 of (1986); v. Liberty 658, 265 Anderson 690, 2018, 2035, L.Ed.2d 56 U.S. Inc., 242, 106 2505, 477 S. Ct. (1978); U.S. Lobby, Bergren City L.Ed.2d 611 v. of 1139, (7th 2510, party Milwaukee, L.Ed.2d 91 202 811 F.2d 1142 Cir. 1987). simply ‘show there is do more than must metaphysical doubt as to mate some complaint, his Patrick claims that Elec. Indus. rial facts.’ Matsushita Co. violat 574, 586, U.S. Corp., Zenith Radio 475 v. ed his fourth and fourteenth amendment 1348, 1356, 106 S. Ct. 89 538 “by unlawfully detaining him with rights omitted). (footnote ‘Where the warrant, probable cause out a valid arrest taken as a whole could lead a

record above, As legal or other basis.” noted for the trier of fact to find non- rational had failed district court found Patrick “genuine no issue moving party, there is allege facts to establish that sufficient ’ 587, at at 106 S. Ct. 1356 trial.” Id. re allegedly Arizona v. (quoting First Nat’l Bank policy custom or sulted from the official Co., 253, 288-89, 88 Serv. Cities finding, on this based 1575, 1592, (1968)). 569 20 L.Ed.2d S. Ct. ap concluded should neither “look other ‘The court Jasper County and Sher propriate for both ignore genuine issues of materi way” to with the agree iff We do not Gilliland. fact, find” material fact nor “strain to concerning al Gilli district court’s conclusion none_’ there are Secre “[s]ummary judgment issues where is Although land. Lauritzen, v. 835 F.2d against party Labor who fails to estab tary proper (7th 1529, Cir.1987) (quoting Mintz of an element essential 1534 lish the existence 379, 495, case,” Fund, Donald, F.2d estab Inc., F.2d 836 at 463 498 his v. Mathers policy municipal of a 1972)).” lishing the existence (7th Cir rights, deprivation any privileges, or provides: 1983 Section who, the Constitution immunities secured any "Every person color of stat- under laws, ordinance, custom, injured party in an ute, regulation, usage to the or shall be liable law, equity, proper subjects, any ... or causes to be suit in or other State action at of subjected, United States or proceeding citizen of the redress.” jurisdiction within the thereof to other 933, (1987)). element of S.Ct. custom is not an essential L.Ed.2d 984 or argument concerning Sheriff Gilliland. Patrick’s case Other than his Rather, policy establishing an or official policy or “municipal question, custom” an essential custom only argument presents appeal against Jasper case Patrick’s element Gilliland, transferring is that him See, e.g., itself. Erwin to the LaPorte Jail over- because of (7th Manitowoc, 1297-99 crowding, violated Indiana Code of Cir.1989); City Chicago, 856 Jones 35-33-11-3 because he obtain failed to Cir.1988); (7th 995-96 Anderson court authorization to transfer Patrick Gutschenritter, (7th 836 F.2d failure comply that this with the trans- Cir.1988); O’Malley, 826 Tavarez v. F.2d fer statute “amounts to an trans- unlawful Cir.1987). Patrick, thereby violating fer of Patrick’s Patrick, great

Unfortunately for ma Fourth, rights Four- under Fifth and appellate is devoted jority of his brief teenth Amendments.” because question presented of whether he suffi presented it was not to the district alleg evidence to establish that cient argument properly is not us and before edly unconstitutional detention resulted ap- we therefore refuse to consider it or Coun custom of peal. Boyers v. Refining Texaco stated, which, previously inapplica ty, Inc., Marketing, question to the of whether Sheriff Gilli- ble Thus, Cir.1988).12 has failed section land is liable to Patrick under 1983. present any properly preserved us with ar- “municipal emphasis on the gument is relevant question question, probability, custom” in all re liability Sheriff Gilliland’s under section determina sulted from the district court’s Consequently, 1983. we hold that Patrick that his failure to establish such tion has his section waived 1983 claim relieved both and Sheriff appeal and will the Gilliland on address liability. fact, of section 1983 This Gilliland alleged merits of his de- however, is irrelevant. It is Patrick’s bur only they tention claim relate to appellant bring as an to this den court’s County. in the alleged attention the errors district main The thrust of Patrick’s com summary judgment court’s order cite plaint against Jasper County is that he was support argu case law in of his relevant an length unreasonable of time ment for reversal thereof. See Fed.R. being magis without taken in front of a 28(a)(4). Patrick to fulfill App.P. has failed trate for a determination that his warrant- and, duty appeal this as we have stated “ supported by probable less arrest was previously, obligation is not the of ‘[i]t that what he as an cause and refers to this court to research and construct the un rights extended detention violated his arguments open parties, espe legal der the fourth and fourteenth cially amendments. they represented by coun ” Beard, settled It is well that the fourth amend supra, sel.’ 840 F.2d at 408-09 694, Miller, requires judicial a of (quoting ment determination Sanchez (7th Cir.1986), denied, probable 703 cert. 479 U.S. cause before an arrest- individual transferred, provides: may Ind.Code 35-33-11-3 be over- crime unless the crowding inadequacy facility or also of the "Upon petition alleging that: requires awaiting transfers of inmates trial or penal facility the local is overcrowded sentencing.” physically inadequate or otherwise to house inmates; and Moreover, whether Sheriff violated Gilliland (2) another Sheriff or the of Commissioner transferring the La- Indiana law Patrick to Department agreed of has Corrections porte Jail is not wheth- Sheriff; determinative of accept custody of inmates from was a violation Constitu- er the transfer may the court order inmates transferred to Racine, City Archie v. 847 custody person agreed tion. See has who banc), 1211, (7th Cir.1988) (en cert. accept custody. 1216-18 Whenever a transfer order is — -, section, denied, necessary only U.S. under this inmates serving a sentence after for a a conviction length on the of time limits subjected to may be a without warrant ed a warrant arrested without liberty. Ger an individual restraint extended an 113-14, 95 may As the Fisher court stat- 420 U.S. be detained. Pugh, stein (1975), 862-63, L.Ed.2d 54 ed: S.Ct. stated: Supreme Court that the this we must conclude “From assessment policemen’s on-the-scene “[A] that the reasonableness Court considers legal justifica- provides probable cause requirement of the fourth amendment suspected of arresting a tion lim- past place arrest to carry does over detention crime, period of and for a brief upon par- this permissible its of duration steps incident take the administrative of detention. The stan- ticular [ ] in custo- suspect is arrest. Once only can be that dard of reasonableness however, justify dis- reasons that dy, that it implied in the Court’s observation neutral magistrate’s pensing specifically, more is to be ‘brief’ longer evaporate. There no required ‘to take the it is to be escape will suspect any danger that ” steps incident to arrest.’ administrative police crimes while commit further or (footnote omitted). and citations Id. at magistrate. evidence to submit their Thus, steps’ “[wjhen the ‘administrative taking And, reasons while the State’s completed, police must take have been subside, suspect’s summary action magistrate to suspect before a neutral prob- determination for a neutral need cause, let probable must establish significantly. cause increases able Co., 797 go.” Tea him Gramenos Jewel prolonged detention consequences of Cir.1986), denied, cert. than the interfer- may more serious be 1028, 107 S.Ct. 95 L.Ed.2d Pretrial con- occasioned arrest. ence (1987); Mingey, 763 F.2d Llaguno v. job, imperil suspect's finement (en banc). (7th Cir.1985) income, im- interrupt his source nor pre- Supreme Court relationships. Even Neither the family pair his test accompanied by adopted “bright-line” bur- establish may be trial release signifi- ing point that affect the warrantless densome conditions at what liberty. Rather, When the we have ana cant restraint to be brief. ceases high, judg- the detached the case-by-case stakes are whether lyzed on a basis essential magistrate is light ment of a neutral in is reasonable period of detention to furnish Amendment is accompanying if the Fourth the de all the circumstances unfounded meaningful protection from arrest, transportation, including tainee’s liberty.” fingerprint interference photographing, booking, filing, and criminal identity verification ing, Inc., Restaurant, Marketplace In Moore v. checks, as the as well record “wanted” Cir.1985), 1336, (7th we F.2d 1351 754 processed with of individuals be number interpreta- the Fourth Circuit’s agreed with Lems v. question. in detainee Washington in Fisher v. tion Gerstein (7th 1366, Cir. F.2d 1369-70 O’Grady, 853 Authority, 690 Area Transit Metropolitan Moore, How 1989); F.2d at 1351-52.13 Cir.1982), 754 concerning the 1133 389, State, 1040, Richey 426 N.E.2d Hatcher, v. F.Supp. tention. See v. 427 In Dommer forty-eight-hour forty (N.D.Ind.1975), part (Ind.1981) (holding on other rev'd in 1046-47 393 Crawford, State, 653 grounds Dommer v. 269 Ind. illegal). sub nom. Pawloski v. detention Cir.1981), found that 1230, (1978) (assuming the court 350, 289 N.E.2d 1234-35 380 with- an individual arrested Indiana law under finding thirty-hour was detention without longer than "be detained a warrant not 664, out State, 348 illegal). 264 Ind. v. Williams magis- [being brought a before without 24 hours (1976) (holding sixty-eight- 626-27 N.E.2d (or legal holiday) trate], Sunday except where State, illegal): Ind. 256 hour detention Nacoff intervenes, person shall be in which case no (1971) (holding four- 267 N.E.2d longer Indiana 48 hours.” The than illegal); and-one-half-day detention Blatz question of whether considered the courts have State, 1088-89 Ind.App. N.E.2d unreasonably long detention is a warrantless il- (1978) (holding ninety-six-hour detention alleged primarily of whether in the context State, Ind.App. legal); Grimes 500, of evi- illegal dence, the exclusion detention merits (1976) (holding six-day de- N.E.2d confessions, during de- e.g., obtained Jail, Jasper County did no more Jasper whether ever, to determine in order simply Patrick to a different than move Patrick for an unreason County detained facility_ there another fa- Had been and, thus, whether Jas period of time able Jasper County in cility available which sec liable to Patrick under per County is Patrick, Jasper to incarcerate then Coun- 1983, initially must determine if tion ty likely would have moved Patrick to responsible for Patrick’s County is facility. Patrick was transferred Jasper and LaPorte Coun in both LaPorte as a means of maintain- confinement ties, merely for Patrick’s ing Jasper County control him for Jail. brought until he could be back.” is re- claims Patrick persuaded by un- We are not Patrick’s for the time was detained sponsible might speculation concerning founded what County and LaPorte both Jail happened have had hours) (approximately because not been overcrowded. The events sur- the initial decision to County officials made Patrick’s detention oc- rounding charges14 him and subse- hold without curred in this case dictate our analysis complying him without quently transferred claim, Patrick’s some statute, prisoner transfer with Indiana’s hypothetical proposed situation to bolster brief, In his Indiana 35-33-11-3.15 Code § arguments appeal. Patrick states: detained in peri- full only reason that Patrick’s “the four hours before he was transferred not occur at the Jas- od of detention did LaPorte because the over- simply that per County Jas- Jail crowding resulting sixty eighty from the per County brought Jail was overcrowded. individuals “drug the LaPorte Jail in association with the DEA/ISP transferring 14. At the time of Patrick’s Ind.Code at 1351. Moore, statutes were in effect in Indiana: Ind.Code arrestees is "not ... tention upon there is made are submitted parte, be submitted shall be recorded order of the ing crime was committed and that the arrested the facts the affidavit or in addition to son arrested officer. (b) shall be submitted "(a) over the offence cial officer: for his initial crime shall be taken “A constitutionality person If the In the Of shall be transcribed. At or before request of state law in a illegal). any § § probable If facts 35-33-7-2, 35-33-7-1, upon County in which the arrest is probable cause affidavit. In lieu of arrested without a warrant for a judicial County without a warrant for a orally hearing any party which the arrest was made governing upon which the committed; the initial controlling cause to believe that by the record of the under oath to the officer determines that believed to have venue the detention.” 754 F.2d which promptly orally, a court in court.... arrest, in the case or judicial as we stated in hearing provides: provides it, reporter, before processing the facts proceeding arrest officer, evaluating ” following proceed- judicial crime, made; upon judi- part: and, may per- any ex 15. As noted accompanying text. this this issue to the district court. tion of the Constitution. See of whether his transfer under section 35-33- Ind.Code bail. practicable time or until he is released on Sunday session, ^[48] the is an er than shall released police made court dealt with filed officer on the record that no mitted do not establish officer shall order that the arrested person order that the arrested swer in the “Whenever an arrest has been made allegation is insufficient to was unlawful because he failed to person prosecuting attorney hours.” not be detained opportunity But a having jurisdiction bring during officer, committed or if the twenty-four intervenes, immediately.” 36-8-3-11, above, according shall be detained in person may proper the hours when court is not in the officer Patrick has waived the issue arrested for a judge it, in which case a court. ^[24] to law. longer hearing person not be detained is not probable arrested before judicial of the informs the hours person, making supra note 12 provides: If the facts sub- than If the arrest is allege jail charge holding be held to an- at the earliest offense, except officer shall cause or if any until there forty-eight the arrest person a viola- present judicial judicial will be event, court, to be long- and be in LaPorte trict court that his detention was transferred Patrick bust.” Once from the of that Jail, County resulted longer County he was no the LaPorte county by County formulated LaPorte control, for detention at least within County Rose. Either LaPorte Sheriff Jan County policymaking Jasper purposes, responsible for Patrick’s detention County Pros namely, Jasper officials — it was not. Patrick is not free to there or See Patton ecutor and Sheriff Gilliland.17 revamp arguments simply his because he Przybylski, 697, 700 Cir. County settled his claim with LaPorte has cite au 1987). has failed to they parties are not and Sheriff Rose Indeed, thority convince us otherwise. Thus, that appeal. to this we conclude nothing more than bald presented he has Jasper County responsible only is for the support of allegations speculation in the four hours Patrick was detained County is re Jasper proposition that analyze Jasper County Jail and we will detained in the time he was sponsible for claim Patrick’s unconstitutional detention above, noted County Jail. As the LaPorte Patton, See accordingly. 822 F.2d at 700. duty to research it is not our relevant arguments in order to discover County conclusion that is re- Our support his contentions authority, any, if only hours Patrick sponsible for four Beard, F.2d at 408-09. appeal. analy- spent jail essentially in its ends our Moreover, it to be somewhat we consider unconstitutional sis of Patrick’s argue ap Despite Jasper County for Patrick to defen- disingenuous claim. they responsible detention oc peal arguments his “unconstitutional dants’ that that solely result of a estab for Patrick’s four-hour detention curred as the period Jail and that by concerted efforts of Jas lished unreasonably long, Patrick Gilli- of time was not per County Prosecutor and Sheriff in this argue, failed to both court argument in the dis light land” in of his jail, in the lest violate with the dissent’s statement incarcerated 16. We take issue (and rights subject engaged prisoners’ defendants that the 1983!). warehousing prisoner liability § under 42 U.S.C. themselves to See, "abusive conduct county_” County, e.g., 887 F.2d 1287 confines of the There Carver v. Knox outside the 1989); support nothing what the Jail Inmates v. in the record to Cir. Union is DiBuono, (3d Cir.1983), implies namely, cert. de F.2d 984 dissent — nied, in order transferred Patrick LaPorte taking magistrate by to avoid him before — "warehousing." the con- term On use of the emphasize that Patrick was We also wish to trary, undisputed was transfer- it that Patrick Police, the Indiana State arrested officers of County Jail due to the over- red to the LaPorte Department Sheriff’s not the Jail conditions in the crowded resulting and, Jail at the arrest- was detained the number of individuals matter, County Jail under "drug at the LaPorte transferred there for in the bust” and ed Moreover, hold, authority infra, Indiana State Police. See processing. as we above, noted detained in the 10-1-1-22. As Patrick was Ind.Code four-hour light and various ISP reasonable in Indiana State Police Jail was sued the eighty) (sixty allegedly had deten- number of arrestees officers for his (interviewed, photo- fingerprinted, the district supra be booked note tion. through possibly, summary judgment the Na- graphed granted checked computer system) and Institute the eleventh tional Crime Police based on Indiana State processed prohibits in association with federal ISP/DEA suits in amendment which Indeed, light "drug the detailed monetary damages in re- bust.” which would court for necessity checking booking procedures treasury. quire payment from the state outstanding Jordan, for each arres- arrest warrants for Quern v. bust,” probabili- "drug taking, granted in all tee from also The court L.Ed.2d 358 per person, ty, minutes of fifteen minimum due to summary judgment the ISP officers for three ISP seems most efficient personal four hours in- their to establish failure Patrick’s sixty eighty process individuals to to officers has not detention. Patrick in his volvement arrested. of his court’s resolution appealed district its against Police and the Indiana State claims officers; dispute county beyond officials that It is also thus, question not address we will jails duty to to maintain their minimize have a and, thus, i.e., responsible they were overcrowding, of whether resulting con- from the risks detention. Patrick's among injury individuals liable for to those flicts Jasper County this four-hour based on his failure to es- in the district rights. his constitutional according violated tablish that he was detained to detention Rather, argument premises his on county policy, official it is well settled that forty entirely on his assertion that appeal appeals summary judgment, “[i]n (the amount of time he was total hours reviewing any ground court affirm on Jasper and LaPorte in detained support that finds in the record.” Donald time relevant for de- County) is the County, supra, v. Polk 836 F.2d at 379.20 County’s liability under termining Jasper Patrick has done so at his section 1983. III. case, ample there is evi- peril.18 In present Patrick has failed to this court the record Patrick’s four-hour dence in adequate reversing with an basis for processing to the is attributable detention grant summary fingerprinting photograph- judgment district court’s (booking, eighty sixty Jasper County to individuals ing) By of the defendants. fo- in Jail con- brought cusing largely arguments relevant “drug light In with the bust.” liability nection county, of the Patrick has processed, to be the number of individuals against waived his claim opinion that the four-hour we are of despite the district court’s erroneous deter- unreasonably long. was not detention mination that Gilliland was entitled to sum- Moore, (“One F.2d at Compare mary judgment based Patrick’s failure could that it took several hours to surmise pursuant to establish that Gilliland acted jail or that the book the [arrestees] Jasper the official or custom of however, extremely busy night; we in detaining regard him. With willing assumptions to make these are not Jasper County, argument Patrick’s that the no, is evidence the record since there county responsible is for his detention in warranting any justifying conclusion both and LaPorte is period spent by hour time four or more without merit and Patrick has failed to jail”). plaintiffs in the allege that the four hours he was detained Jasper County jail in the was unreasonable. Thus, entry hold that Thus, large degree, to a Patrick has waived ap- in favor of is against his claim defen- Patrick has failed propriate because to set by failing argue adequately dants legal precedent facts and his forth sufficient is, genuine case this court. That he has failed establishing a issue of material allege question ju- of whether sufficient facts and cite relevant fact on the authority support Patrick in dicial his County detained violation of his claim that he rights. Although unconstitutionally constitutional the district was the Jas- disposed per County Accordingly, court claim defendants.21 agreed light holding 18. Even if we with Patrick's contention of our that Patrick has failed violation, regarding length to establish a constitutional we need of detention for which Jas- not, regarding not address his contentions whether per County responsible, we do he presented sufficient evidence to establish an single to cite a case in his brief failed part official County, including on the custom concerning assessing the standards for rea- argument that the district a warrantless sonableness of thus, improperly determined that the conversa- Beard, supra, claim has waived this under tion between Sheriff Gilliland and the adequately argue ap- for failure to his case on hearsay. Prosecutor was As we stated peal. Furay, in Mark v. Cir.1985): question “The of whether a munici- in the 19. There is evidence record that at least pality deprivation caused does processing officers were involved in three ISP proof deprivation not even arise absent that a Although Sheriff Gilliland these individuals. (Emphasis original). fact occurred.” other officers Sheriffs Department present during booking were the regard apparent 21. It is no doubt that we Pat- procedures, the record does not reflect arguments appeal wholly inadequate whether rick’s to processing grant summary assisted the ISP officers in reverse the district court’s sixty judgment eighty arrestees. in favor of the defen- grant judgment court’s district and

in favor of Gilliland PEABODY COMPANY and Old COAL Republic Company, Insurance Petitioners, Affirmed.

RIPPLE, dissenting. Judge, Circuit Director, Earl V. and HELMS Office of Compensation Programs, Workers’ dis- I reverse the would Labor, Department United States Re respect to the claims trict court spondents. Jasper County and Sheriff against Gilli- land.1 No. 88-2882. county and prosecutors Indiana sher- Appeals, United States Court of county2 their not excused

iffs—and —are Seventh Circuit. statutory obli- bring person an incarcerated gation Argued Dec. simply officer judicial before a promptly April Decided delivered to has been because county jail by police state officer. civil parties escape liability these Nor can by warehousing abusive conduct

for such the confines of the prisoner outside

county in violation of state law. The fact county its receiving sheriff liability incur is irrelevant

might also

determining liability of those who initi- continuing responsibility and have

ated I illegality. Accordingly respectfully

dissent. argumentation permit us to point wish that the forth sufficient dants. We County out appeal performance adjudicate Appellant's defendants’ was contention view, much better than that of Patrick. It is my role in the sheriff. sheriff's party to us that neither section incredible illegal plaintiff to LaPorte Coun- transfer of the action, alleg- which is based on Patrick’s ty preserved adequately in the district also detention, edly cited a sin- court. addressing gle in their case briefs limita- fourth fourteenth amendments tions the prosecutor joint sher- 2. decision place on the detention of individuals arrested plaintiff lengthy can to hold for a iff a warrant. without county. policy of the See Pembaur constitute a 484-85, Cincinnati, City represented

1. In this 1292, 1300-01, (1986); see S.Ct. same counsel as note, Gutschenritter, given my attention was brothers little also Anderson v. liability (7th Cir.1988). individual of the sheriff. whole, certainly as a the brief sets when read

Case Details

Case Name: Ronnie L. Patrick v. Jasper County and Sheriff Terry Gilliland

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Date Published: Apr 12, 1990

Citation: 901 F.2d 561

Docket Number: 88-2152

Court Abbreviation: 7th Cir.