Hurt v. Vantlin

Andrea (age 16), Deadra (19), and William (18) Hurt were arrested after their uncle, Golike, was found dead beside the Ohio River. Golike had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and, days before his death, had been released from prison, where he was on suicide watch. Deadra and William “confessed.” Several critical “facts” that William offered were facially impossible, Andrea was never charged. Charges against Deadra were dropped after she spent four months in jail. William was prosecuted but not convicted on any charge. He spent eight months in jail The siblings filed a civil suit against those involved in their arrests and prosecutions based on the interrogations, the decisions to arrest all three, and alleged fabrication of evidence. The district court rejected most of the defendants’ claims of qualified immunity. The Seventh Circuit reversed with respect to Deadra’s claim of fabricated evidence and a substantive due process claim. The interviews may have been abusive, but were not conscience-shocking. The court otherwise affirmed. Taking the inferences in the Hurts’ favor, a jury could reasonably conclude it was objectively unreasonable for an officer to believe there was probable cause. There was adequate circumstantial evidence of a conspiracy violate the Hurts’ constitutional rights. A trier of fact could find that the officers deliberately coerced confessions by using threats. The rule forbidding such conduct has been established for decades. View "Hurt v. Vantlin" on Justia Law