## Facts

- William Whirl was arrested in Houston, Texas on September 9, 1962, and jailed.
- He was transferred to the Harris County jail on September 11, 1962, where he was booked and held under the sheriff’s custody.
- Whirl was indicted for burglary and theft.
- On November 4, 1962, the Criminal District Court dismissed the indictments on the district attorney’s motion due to insufficient evidence.
- Court records reflected the dismissals, and a list of dismissals was transmitted to the sheriff’s office; the sheriff later claimed he did not learn of the dismissals.
- Whirl nonetheless remained confined until July 25, 1963—nearly nine months after the charges were dismissed.
- Whirl sued the sheriff and the sheriff’s surety for Texas common-law false imprisonment and for deprivation of liberty without due process under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- A federal jury returned a defense verdict after instructions that framed the claims in negligence terms and permitted broad reliance on the sheriff’s asserted good faith; Whirl appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a sheriff is liable under Texas false-imprisonment law for continuing to confine a prisoner months after dismissal of charges, despite claimed lack of notice and good faith.
2. Whether liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for over-detention requires proof of malice or improper motive, or instead turns on deprivation of liberty without due process under color of state law.
3. Whether jury instructions emphasizing negligence, contributory negligence, and proximate cause improperly misstated the governing standards for false imprisonment and § 1983 over-detention.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit reversed the judgment for the sheriff and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held that the evidence supported liability for false imprisonment under Texas law because continued confinement after dismissal lacked lawful authority.
- The court held that Whirl stated a § 1983 claim because the sheriff, acting under color of state law, caused a deprivation of liberty without due process.
- The court rejected the requirement of proving improper motive as an element of § 1983 liability in this context.
- The court concluded the jury was misinstructed by treating the case as negligence-based and by allowing “good faith” to operate as a broad defense to unlawful detention.

## Legal Principles

- A jailer is privileged to confine only while supported by fairly valid legal process; when that basis is extinguished (e.g., charges dismissed), continued detention is unlawful absent a new lawful ground.
- Under Texas false-imprisonment doctrine, good faith and administrative error do not convert an unlawful detention into a privileged one; the custodian bears responsibility for the legality of continued confinement.
- Section 1983 liability requires (1) action under color of state law and (2) a resulting deprivation of a federal right; improper motive or malice is not a required element for over-detention claims predicated on lack of due process.
- Jury instructions that recast unlawful-detention claims as ordinary negligence (including contributory negligence concepts) may be reversible error when they dilute the strict limits on custodial authority.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit held that a sheriff may be liable for keeping a person jailed months after dismissal of all charges and that, for § 1983 over-detention claims, the plaintiff need not prove malice or improper motive; it is enough that the sheriff’s custodial actions under color of law caused an unlawful deprivation of liberty without due process.


Whirl v. Kern, 407 F.2d 781 (5th Cir. 1969)