Baker v. McCollan
443 U.S. 137 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 requires proof of a deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law; a tort committed by a state official, such as false imprisonment, does not become a constitutional violation merely because the defendant is a state actor.
Facts:
- Linnie McCollan's brother, Leonard, obtained a duplicate of Linnie's driver's license but with Leonard's own photograph on it.
- In October 1972, Leonard was arrested on narcotics charges in Potter County, Texas, while masquerading as Linnie Carl McCollan.
- After Leonard was released on bail, his bondsman surrendered him, and a warrant was issued for the arrest of 'Linnie Carl McCollan'.
- On December 26, 1972, the actual Linnie McCollan was stopped for a traffic violation in Dallas.
- A routine warrant check revealed the Potter County warrant, and Linnie was arrested despite his repeated protests of mistaken identity.
- Dallas police contacted the Potter County Sheriff's Department, compared identifying information, and concluded they had the correct person.
- On December 30, Potter County deputies took custody of Linnie and detained him in the Potter County Jail.
- Linnie remained in jail until January 2, 1973, when officials compared his appearance to a file photograph, realized their mistake, and released him.
Procedural Posture:
- Linnie Carl McCollan sued Sheriff Baker and his surety in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, alleging a violation of his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- At the close of evidence, the District Court (trial court) directed a verdict in favor of Sheriff Baker.
- McCollan, as appellant, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court) reversed the District Court, finding that a jury could reasonably conclude the sheriff was negligent, and remanded the case for a new trial.
- Sheriff Baker, as petitioner, filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, which the U.S. Supreme Court granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the detention of an individual for three days over a holiday weekend, pursuant to a facially valid arrest warrant but under a claim of mistaken identity, constitute a deprivation of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Rehnquist
No, the detention did not constitute a deprivation of liberty without due process of law. The first inquiry in any § 1983 suit is whether the plaintiff has been deprived of a right 'secured by the Constitution and laws.' Here, McCollan was arrested under a facially valid warrant, which satisfied the Fourth Amendment's probable cause requirements. While an indefinite detention in the face of innocence protests could eventually violate due process or speedy trial rights, a three-day detention over a New Year's weekend does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. The Constitution does not require a sheriff to investigate every claim of innocence, as the ultimate determination of guilt or innocence is for the judge and jury. McCollan's claim is essentially one for the state tort of false imprisonment, which does not become a constitutional violation merely because it was committed by a state official.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Blackmun
No, the detention was not a constitutional violation. The sheriff's conduct in this case does not 'shock the conscience' as required by precedents like Rochin v. California. The sheriff was new to the job, and his error was one of failing to properly supervise his deputies rather than any outrageous or deliberate action. However, the Court's opinion does not foreclose the possibility that a more egregious situation, such as a sheriff deliberately and repeatedly refusing to check the identity of a complaining prisoner, could constitute a due process violation. Because the sheriff's conduct here was not shocking, and no other incorporated right was violated, there is no § 1983 claim.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Marshall
Yes, this detention violated the Fourteenth Amendment. This case does not involve 'mere negligence' but rather intentional action. Despite McCollan's repeated protests of misidentification and information in the sheriff's own files suggesting the name on the warrant was incorrect, the petitioner and his deputies intentionally made no effort for eight days to determine if they were holding an innocent man. This intentional inaction in the face of known risks and repeated protests is a constitutional violation.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Stevens
Yes, the detention was a deprivation of liberty without due process of law. The Due Process Clause requires that the state not only justify the initial arrest but also the continued detention. The Potter County Sheriff's office had no reasonably calculated procedures to verify the identity of detainees, which is a constitutional requirement to prevent wrongful deprivations of liberty. The sheriff's office possessed information—an altered driver's license—suggesting the wanted person was using an alias, yet failed to take simple, standard steps to confirm McCollan's identity. The absence of such procedures, leading to an eight-day imprisonment of an innocent man, is a clear violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarified the scope of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, establishing it is not a 'font of tort law.' It created a crucial threshold inquiry for all § 1983 claims: a plaintiff must first identify a specific violation of a right secured by the Constitution or federal statutes. By distinguishing between a state tort (false imprisonment) and a constitutional violation, the Court limited the ability of plaintiffs to bring federal civil rights claims for harms that, while serious, do not implicate a specific constitutional guarantee. The decision forces courts and litigants to ground § 1983 actions in specific constitutional text or precedent rather than general principles of negligence or official misconduct.
Unlock the full brief for Baker v. McCollan