Criminal Procedure 9am
February 21, 2012
County of Riverside V. McLaughlin
Statement of the facts: Plaintiff McLaughlin initiated a class-action lawsuit, alleging that the County’s practice of combining arraignment with a determination of probable cause for people subject to warrantless arrest was not valid regarding the fourth amendment. Gerstein v. Pugh, also was allegedly violated mentioned as a reference case forcing the courts to define “prompt”. Where the court agreed it violated the fourth amendment. There was a second amended complaint by Hyde, Simon, and James regarding the same disregard to promptness, which eventually was remanded. Generally, arraignments must be within forty-eight hours of arrest. However, weekends and holidays are not included as days. Persons arrested at the end of the week could have as many as seven days before arraignment and a probable cause determination. The County moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting that McLaughlin lacked standing because the time for providing him a prompt probable cause determination had already passed and he had not shown that he would again be subject to the allegedly unconstitutional conduct.
Legal issue: Did the county violate McLaughlin, Simon, Hyde, and James fourth amendment right for a prompt probable cause determination hearing?
Holding: An individual (or individuals) arrested without a warrant must know the probable cause for their arrest from law enforcement officials within 48 hours.
Reasoning: The court established a compromise…