LOPEZ V. CITY OF CHICAGO 464 F.3d 711 (7th Cir. 2006) CASE BRIEF

LOPEZ V. CITY OF CHICAGO

464 F.3d 711 (7th Cir. 2006)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Lopez (P), arrestee appealed the grant of judgment as a matter of law to Chicago (Ds), a city and detectives on P's 42 U.S.C.S. 1983 claim, alleging that Ds subjected him to an unconstitutional detention in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, and his state law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

FACTS: P was arrested by Ds for a murder he did not commit. The murder victim was a twelve-year-old boy, an innocent bystander hit by gunfire in a drive-by shooting. P was arrested without a warrant, although with probable cause--an eyewitness identified him as the shooter. P was shackled to the wall of a windowless, nine-by-seven-foot interrogation room for four days and nights while Ds investigated the case. P had nowhere to sleep but a four-foot-by-ten-inch metal bench or the dirty brick floor. The room had no toilet or sink; he had to 'scream' for the detectives to let him out to use a bathroom. He was given only one bologna sandwich and one serving of juice as food and drink during the entire four days and nights he was kept in the interrogation room. The detectives questioned him from time to time and made him stand in two lineups. After two-and-a-half days in these conditions, P started to become disoriented and began hearing voices telling him to confess. He ultimately gave a statement containing a false confession that did not match the details of the crime. On the fifth day of his detention, P was moved to the city lockup, charged, and finally taken to court. The following day, the police investigation led detectives to another individual who confessed to the murder. P was released the next day. P sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for violation of his constitutional rights and his supplemental state law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Remarkably, after hearing this evidence, the district court refused to submit the claims to the jury and instead granted Ds' motion for judgment as a matter of law. P appealed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner