CHICAGO — A federal appeals panel has reversed the bulk of a dismissal of a civil rights class action concerning Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart’s pretrial detention practices.
Nine Black Chicagoans sued the county after Dart reviewed their felony arrest records and decided against county judges’ allowances of pretrial release with electronic monitoring, leaving them in jail for an extra three to 14 days.
U.S. District Judge Harry Leinenweber dismissed the majority of the lawsuit for failure to adequately allege violations of state law and constitutional rights. The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge David Hamilton wrote the panel’s opinion, issued July 23. Judges Michael Kanne and Diane Wood concurred.
“No one in this case disputes the existence of probable cause to detain each plaintiff,” Hamilton wrote, citing Leinenweber’s application of the Fourth Amendment. “The dispute is over procedure.”
The panel said the plaintiffs’ allegations are that Dart “arrogated to himself a decision that was not his to make” through the independent review of judges’ bail orders, a process that runs counter to county policy as well as “a core function of the Fourth Amendment.”
Once someone who has been arrested has a court appearance, the purpose of their initial arrest, or seizure, is accomplished, the panel said. Further detention requires either a court order — such as bail terms — or a new cause for arrest. While the plaintiffs were still plausible suspects for the charged offenses, Dart lacked probable cause for the second detention.
“It is only another way of expressing our original conclusion,” Hamilton wrote. “Courts, not sheriffs, make pretrial detention decisions.”
The panel also said Dart couldn’t justify his decisions based on the notion of “brief and reasonable administrative delay.”
Hamilton wrote that the panel agreed with Leinenweber that plaintiffs aren’t entitled to relief under the federal Due Process Clause, but differed in reasoning, saying Fourth Amendment claims predominate. Further, the panel noted the allegations don’t address county jail conditions or the general issue of pretrial detention.
Leinenweber also said the complaint lacked plausible allegations of purposeful, racial discrimination. The panel disagreed, alleging the plaintiffs specifically were targeted based on race while also bringing allegations that Dart’s bail review policy “disproportionately targets African Americans by using charge, prior arrests and neighborhood to determine eligibility for release.”
Turning to the plainitffs’ equal protection claims, under state and federal law, the panel disagreed with Leinenweber’s finding that the complaint lacked sufficient allegations of intentional discrimination. It said the plaintiffs alleged that out of more than 80 people Dart detained after being granted bail, more than four out of five were black. That alone is “sufficient reason to believe the sheriff could be found liable for intentional discrimination,” Hamilton wrote.
Although Dart said his policy was race-neutral in the way it was conceived and executed, the panel determined the dispute is suited for post-discovery trial proceedings.
Finally, the plaintiffs said Dart displayed contempt of the courts’ bail orders. Leinenweber agreed with Dart’s position that those orders weren’t legally issued to him. In fact, no one particular person was named to administrate the orders. The panel examined a March 2018 memo in which the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office told Dart prosecutors wouldn’t object to monitoring orders at his request, especially since the sheriff had been obeying such orders “for decades” with no objection.
One bail order in the record clearly identified Dart’s office as the supervising authority and stated the defendant, if unable to be placed on electronic monitoring for any reason, should get another court appearance within 72 hours, yet she exceeded that time in jail.
“If the sheriff was going to change his policy toward these court orders,” Hamilton wrote, “the Illinois courts could reasonably conclude as a matter of state law that he needed to bring that subject up immediately with the courts, not silently refuse to comply while holding plaintiffs as pawns in an inter-branch policy dispute.”
The panel affirmed only dismissal of the due process claims and reversed the remainder, remanding for further proceedings.
The plaintiffs have been represented in the action by attorneys Sara A. Garber, of the firm of Thedford Garber Law, of Chicago, and Adele D. Nicholas, of Chicago.
Dart has been represented by attorney Richard Christopher Gleason, of the firm of O'Mara, Gleason, & O'Callaghan LLC, of Chicago.
Cook County has been represented by the Cook County State's Attorney's Office.