## Facts

- Joseph Lopez was arrested without a warrant for a drive-by shooting murder based on an eyewitness identification.
- Detectives held Lopez for five days after the warrantless arrest without taking him before a judge for a probable-cause determination.
- For roughly four days and nights, Lopez was kept shackled to a wall in a small, windowless interrogation room with no toilet or sink and limited access to a bathroom.
- Lopez testified he received only one bologna sandwich and one serving of juice during that period.
- Lopez had no bed; he slept on a narrow metal bench or the floor, was periodically questioned, and was placed in two lineups.
- After about two and a half days, Lopez became disoriented, reported hearing voices urging him to confess, and gave a false confession that did not match crime details.
- On the fifth day, Lopez was moved to lockup, charged, and taken to court; after detectives obtained a confession from another person the next day, Lopez was released the following day.
- Lopez sued the City of Chicago and individual detectives under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for unconstitutional detention length and conditions and brought an Illinois claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).
- After a seven-day jury trial, the district court granted defendants judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50 on all claims, removing them from the jury.

## Issues

1. Whether a five-day detention following a warrantless arrest without a judicial probable-cause determination violates the Fourth Amendment under Gerstein and McLaughlin.
2. Whether conditions of confinement for a detainee held pre-probable-cause determination are governed by the Fourth Amendment objective reasonableness standard rather than an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference standard.
3. Whether the evidence permitted a reasonable jury to find liability on the conditions-of-confinement claim and the Illinois IIED claim, making Rule 50 judgment improper.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit reversed the Rule 50 judgment for defendants.
- The court held Lopez was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on liability for the Fourth Amendment violation based on the undisputed failure to provide a prompt judicial probable-cause determination within the required timeframe; the case proceeded on damages for that claim.
- The court held the district court used the wrong constitutional standard for the conditions-of-confinement claim and improperly took the claim from the jury.
- The court remanded for a new trial on the § 1983 conditions-of-confinement claim under the Fourth Amendment objective reasonableness test.
- The court remanded for a new trial on the Illinois IIED claim because the evidence could support findings of extreme and outrageous conduct and severe emotional distress.

## Legal Principles

- Following a warrantless arrest, the Fourth Amendment requires a prompt judicial determination of probable cause as a prerequisite to extended restraint of liberty.
- A jurisdiction generally complies if it provides a probable-cause determination within 48 hours; delays beyond 48 hours are presumptively unreasonable and must be justified by a bona fide emergency or other extraordinary circumstance.
- Continuing to investigate or strengthen a case is not an extraordinary circumstance that justifies delaying a judicial probable-cause determination beyond 48 hours.
- For detention conditions imposed after a warrantless arrest but before a judicial probable-cause determination, the governing standard is Fourth Amendment objective reasonableness, not Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference.
- Judgment as a matter of law is improper where, viewing the evidence and reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmovant, a reasonable jury could find for that party; credibility disputes are for the jury.
- Under Illinois IIED law, a claim may proceed where evidence could support extreme and outrageous conduct, intent or recklessness, and severe emotional distress.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit held that holding Lopez for five days after a warrantless arrest without a judicial probable-cause determination violated the Fourth Amendment as a matter of law, and it required a new trial on whether the alleged interrogation-room conditions were objectively unreasonable and whether the same conduct supported liability for IIED under Illinois law.


Lopez v. City of Chicago, 464 F.3d 711 (7th Cir. 2006)