Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Criminal Law Blogs -> Fourth Amendment

Criminal Law

: Fourth Amendment

AK: Probation arrest of plaintiff on suspicion of theft shortly proved unfounded was not a separate Fourth Amendment violation because she was always in their legal "custody"

By John Wesley Hall, Jr.

A probationer was detained for investigation of theft from her employer and returned to prison. After a few days it was determined that she was not a thief and she was released. She suited the Alaska DOC for her seizure, and the court found that her “seizure” did not violate the Fourth Amendment because she was actually still in their custody. Wenona v. State, Department of Corrections, 2010 Alas. LEXIS 109 (October 1, 2010)*: We affirm the superior court’s decision because: (1) Diaz’s officer-escorted trip to and interrogation at the travel agency did not implicate her Fourth Amendment rights as she was already in DOC custody when the DOC officers “seized” her; (2) the DOC officers’ actions, although disturbing, did not “shock the conscience” as required for a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; (3) Diaz’s return to prison, her day of segregation from the general population, and the two days of telephone restrictions did not deprive her of a liberty interest in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment because her freedom was not restrained in excess of her sentence and she did not experience an atypical or significant hardship in comparison to ordinary prison life; and (4) the private detective and his agency are not liable for conspiring with state officials to violate Diaz's constitutional rights because no such violation occurred...continue to full post

Full post as published by Fourth Amendment on October 13, 2010 (boomark / email).