417 F.3d 808 (8th Cir. 2005), 04-2756, Golberg v. Hennepin County

Docket Nº:04-2756.
Citation:417 F.3d 808
Party Name:Alexandra GOLBERG, Plaintiff--Appellant, v. HENNEPIN COUNTY; Sheriff Patrick McGowan, individually and in his official capacity, Defendants--Appellees.
Case Date:August 01, 2005
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 808

417 F.3d 808 (8th Cir. 2005)

Alexandra GOLBERG, Plaintiff--Appellant,

v.

HENNEPIN COUNTY; Sheriff Patrick McGowan, individually and in his official capacity, Defendants--Appellees.

No. 04-2756.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

August 1, 2005

Submitted: Feb. 18, 2005.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Sept. 13, 2005.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.

Page 809

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 810

Seth M. Colton, argued, Minneapolis, MN (Kay Nort Hunt, on the brief), for appellant.

Beverly J. Wolfe, argued, Minneapolis, MN, for appellee.

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, RILEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

LOKEN, Chief Judge.

Alexandra Golberg appeared before a Minnesota state court judge, responding to a felony fraud complaint. The court continued the criminal proceeding but ordered that Golberg be booked at the Hennepin County Adult Detention Center (ADC) before her release. ADC officials then discovered that Golberg had two outstanding warrants requiring her to post bail before she could be released. As a result, Golberg remained in custody at the ADC for thirty-two hours, including ten hours after her father posted the required bail. Two years later, Golberg commenced this § 1983 action against Hennepin County and various County officials, alleging that the excessive detention violated her federal constitutional rights. She later dismissed all defendants except the County and County Sheriff Patrick McGowan (collectively, the County). The district court [1 granted summary judgment to the County. Golberg appeals, arguing that summary judgment was improper because whether her detention was reasonable is a disputed fact question for the jury. Reviewing the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, we affirm.

Golberg's principal claim in the district court was that her detention violated her Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure. On appeal, Golberg does not challenge the state court judge's decision to have her booked before her pretrial release on the felony fraud charge, and she concedes that, following discovery of the outstanding warrants, there was probable cause to detain her at ADC until she posted the required bail. Thus, the issue is whether Golberg's constitutional rights were violated either because she was not allowed to use a phone for seventeen hours to call her parents to arrange for bail, or because she was detained an additional ten hours after ADC accepted the bail her father posted.

Golberg's argument is premised on the proposition that the length of her detention must be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness standard. [2] We disagree with the premise. To

Page 811

be sure, that standard applies when the question is whether a detainee was provided a prompt probable cause hearing following a warrantless arrest. See County of Riverside...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP