Supreme Court questions treatment of arrestees

After a series of African-American men died at the hands of police, the U.S. Supreme Court case of Michael Kingsley couldn’t be more relevant. It questions use of force against suspects and the rights of people in custody.

The court heard the case the last week in April, but the events in question happened in 2010. Authorities in Wisconsin arrested Kingsley on cocaine charges. In confinement while awaiting trial, Kingsley refused to obey orders to remove paper he’d placed over a light in his room. Jail staff members took it down themselves. They attempted to cuff Kingsley and transfer him to solitary confinement, but he resisted and got into a scuffle with officers. Kingsley claims his jailers used a Taser stun gun on him for no reason, slammed his head against concrete, and kneed him in the back. He sued, arguing that treatment violated his 14th Amendment due-process rights.

Justice Elena Kagan explained an important legal concept in the case: “We’ve consistently said that if you’re a pretrial detainee, if you haven’t been found to have committed wrongful conduct, you shouldn’t be treated the same way as people who have been found to have committed wrongful conduct.”

Detainees are in a legal no-man’s land. They’re not really free citizens, but neither are they convicted criminals.

Free citizens sue an officer under the Fourth Amendment’s unreasonable search and seizure bans. A convict sues his jailers under the Eighth Amendment’s cruel and unusual punishment ban. The first requires proving the officer was unreasonable, and intent doesn’t matter. The other requires proving the officer was reckless and deliberate in harming an inmate.

But pretrial detainees sue under the 14th Amendment’s due-process clause, which says, “Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”

The law is unclear whether Kingsley must prove jailers were merely unreasonable, regardless of intent, or reckless with intent to harm.

The justices tried to find that line.

“Suppose the prisoners are misbehaving. They’re unruly,” Justice Anthony Kennedy said. “They’re yelling and throwing things at the guards, and the guards say, ‘All right, lockdown for 24 hours; you can’t go to the mess hall.’ Now, the detainee raises his hand and says, ‘Oh, excuse me. I’m a detainee. I have a different standing.’ … Is that what has to happen here.”

Wendy Ward, Kingsley’s attorney, said yes.

A ruling for Kingsley could mean jails have to separate detainees who are still presumed innocent from people convicted by a judge or jury. It would cost money to renovate jails and hire more people. But the concept of “presumed innocence” is on the line, too.

Listen to Legal Docket on The World and Everything in It.