tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7105917.post2838788417517832316..comments2023-09-28T11:03:34.448-05:00Comments on Woman of the Law: race against the clockUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7105917.post-21418887490458039662007-02-27T21:27:00.000-05:002007-02-27T21:27:00.000-05:00Nice analysis of the Wallace problem (which is the...Nice analysis of the <I>Wallace</I> problem (which is the similar to the way I tried to argue the case).<BR/><BR/>But you're being overly pessimistic about the limitation on damages to the time to arraignment. This is the current rule in the Seventh Circuit for false arrest claims, but was neither accepted nor rejected by the Supreme Court in <I>Wallace,</I>, the efforts of the parties notwithstanding. <BR/><BR/><BR/>"The theory of his complaint is that the initial<BR/>Fourth Amendment violation set the wheels in motion for<BR/>his subsequent conviction and detention: The unlawful<BR/>arrest led to the coerced confession, which was introduced<BR/>at his trial, producing his conviction and incarceration. As<BR/>we have just explained, at common law damages for detention<BR/>after issuance of process or arraignment would be<BR/>attributable to a tort other than the unlawful arrest alleged<BR/>in petitioner’s complaint—and probably a tort<BR/>chargeable to defendants other than the respondents here.<BR/><I>Even assuming, however, that all damages for detention<BR/>pursuant to legal process could be regarded as consequential<BR/>damages attributable to the unlawful arrest, that<BR/>would not alter the commencement date for the statute of<BR/>limitations.</I> (slip op. 6.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com