- The Washington Times - Wednesday, February 21, 2007

ASSOCIATED PRESS

A deadline is a deadline, the Supreme Court said yesterday in refusing to allow a man wrongly imprisoned for more than eight years to sue the police officers who arrested him.

Andre Wallace, whose murder conviction was overturned in 2002, waited several years too long to file his false-arrest lawsuit, the court said in a 7-2 ruling.

He had two years in which to file his civil rights lawsuit, which he began working on during the year after his release. The issue before the court was when the two-year clock began to run.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said the correct starting point is when a judge reviews the criminal charges against a defendant and binds him over for trial. In Mr. Wallace’s case, this hearing occurred in 1994, shortly after his arrest.

Mr. Wallace was a minor at the time, 15 years old, and Justice Scalia said the two-year period did not begin until he became an adult, which is at 18 in Illinois where he was arrested. But even then, he said, “the suit was out of time.”

Justice Stephen G. Breyer, joined in dissent by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, said it would make more sense to hold off on filing false-arrest claims until criminal convictions are nullified because of problems with the arrest, confession or gathering of other evidence.

The decision probably will result in a flood of false-arrest lawsuits, “no matter how meritless the claim,” because criminal defendants won’t risk missing the deadline, Justice Breyer said.

Kenneth Flaxman, Mr. Wallace’s lawyer, said the ruling will create an “administrative nightmare” for the lower courts.

Mr. Wallace was freed from prison in 2002, after Illinois courts ruled his arrest was illegal, reversed his murder conviction and caused prosecutors to drop charges against him. He had been in custody since shortly after John Handy was fatally shot in 1994.

Mr. Wallace filed his lawsuit in 2003. A federal judge dismissed the lawsuit and was upheld by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Chicago police Officers Kristen Kato and Eugene Roy brought Mr. Wallace in for questioning in Mr. Handy’s death in January 1994. In the course of an interrogation that went through the night, Mr. Wallace said he was subjected to a “good cop/bad cop” routine that included being slapped and kicked. In the officers’ account, Mr. Wallace was free to leave at any time.

Eventually, Mr. Wallace confessed. He tried and failed to have his statements thrown out on the grounds that he was arrested without probable cause and that his confession was coerced.

He was convicted of first degree-murder in 1996 after a trial in which Mr. Wallace said he shot Mr. Handy in self-defense or, alternatively, in mutual combat, attorneys for the officers argued in court papers.

Mr. Wallace appealed the conviction. The Illinois Appellate Court eventually threw out the confession because it was the product of an arrest made without probable cause.

Prosecutors at that point decided not to try Mr. Wallace again, but would reinstate the murder charge against Mr. Wallace if they got additional evidence, the officers’ lawyers said.


Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.

 

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide