Skip to content
  • Team
    • Howard Kaplan
    • Sarah Grady
    • David Schmutzer
    • Nabihah Maqbool
    • John D. Tinder
    • Sarah Brodwolf
  • Practice Areas
    • Overview
    • Prisoners’ Rights
      • Wrongful Death
      • Medical & Mental Health
      • Sexual Assault
      • Failure to Protect
    • Business Litigation
      • Complex Commercial Litigation
      • Employment Litigation
  • Dispute Resolution
  • Resources
    • Seventh Circuit Roundup
    • Prisoner’s Rights Listserv
    • Prisoners’ Rights Resources
    • Press Kit
  • Careers
Call Today
Contact Us
312-852-2184
  • Team
    • Howard Kaplan
    • Sarah Grady
    • David Schmutzer
    • Nabihah Maqbool
    • John D. Tinder
    • Sarah Brodwolf
  • Practice Areas
    • Overview
    • Prisoners’ Rights
      • Wrongful Death
      • Medical & Mental Health
      • Sexual Assault
      • Failure to Protect
    • Business Litigation
      • Complex Commercial Litigation
      • Employment Litigation
  • Dispute Resolution
  • Resources
    • Seventh Circuit Roundup
    • Prisoner’s Rights Listserv
    • Prisoners’ Rights Resources
    • Press Kit
  • Careers
Mitchell v. Doherty
37 F.4th 1277 (7th Cir. 2022)

The Court (Rovner/St. Eve/Jackson-Akiwumi, with St. Eve writing) held that the 4th Amendment does not require a person to be given a bail hearing within 48 hours of arrest (and requires only that a probable-cause determination occur, which can be done ex parte). The opinion is notable for its detailed discussion about the role that the 4th Amendment plays for a person in custody where a probable-cause determination has already occurred. Of course, after that detailed discussion, the Court simply says, “we need not decide whether the 4th Amendment applies” after a probable-cause determination, because either way, plaintiffs lose (bail hearings w/in 68 hours don’t violate the 4th Amendment). Folks representing people in pretrial custody will want to think about whether this opinion opens the door to some sort of 4th Amendment claim. And even if it doesn’t, it’s worth noting that St. Eve repeats her comment from an earlier opinion (Pulera) that on some issues, the standard of proof required under the 4th and 14th Amendment are identical.

Mitchell v. Doherty 6.22.22Download
PrevPrevious
NextNext

More
Summaries

Kaplan & Grady Welcomes John D. Tinder, Former Seventh Circuit Judge, District Court Judge, and United States Attorney, to the Firm

February 8, 2023

Munson v. Newbold

October 28, 2022

Williams v. Rajoli

October 28, 2022
join our prisoners' rights Listserv
1953 N. Clybourn Ave., Suite 274, Chicago, IL 60614
  • 1-312-852-2184
  • hello@kaplangrady.com

Terms • Privacy • Accessibility

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome • This website contains attorney advertising

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome

This website contains attorney advertising

Terms • Privacy • Accessibility

© Kaplan & Grady LLC 2023

Please contact us with information about your case

Your submission will be reviewed and a notification will be emailed.