Policing the Police: Protecting Civil Remedies in Cases of Retaliatory Arrest

23 Pages Posted: 4 May 2013

See all articles by Randolph Robinson II

Randolph Robinson II

University of Illinois at Chicago John Marshall Law School

Date Written: September 5, 2012

Abstract

In Howards v. McLaughlin, the Tenth Circuit provided a definitive statement of its treatment of probable cause in retaliatory arrest cases. Part I of this Comment will examine the genesis of Constitutional tort law, the evolution of retaliatory case law, and the current split among the federal circuits as to whether the absence of probable cause is a requirement in retaliation cases. Part II summarizes the facts, procedural history, and opinions of Howards v. McLaughlin. Part III argues that the Tenth Circuit was correct in its holding that existence of probable cause should not be a bar to retaliatory arrest claims, by demonstrating that probable cause does not preclude retaliatory causation. Part III also addresses the current circuit split by distinguishing Howards from the Supreme Court’s holding in Hartman. Lastly, Part IV analyzes the arguments put forth by the petition for certiorari, and gives insight into how the Supreme Court should and will and rule on this issue.

Suggested Citation

Robinson II, Randolph, Policing the Police: Protecting Civil Remedies in Cases of Retaliatory Arrest (September 5, 2012). Denver University Law Review, Vol. 89, p. 499, 2012, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2260381

Randolph Robinson II (Contact Author)

University of Illinois at Chicago John Marshall Law School ( email )

315 South Plymouth Court
Chicago, IL 60604
United States

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Downloads
56
Abstract Views
333
rank
408,692
PlumX Metrics