Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
Hernandez v. US
"In defending this appeal, the Government and the City point fingers at each other. The Government argues that the City was responsible for Hernandezʹs confinement and the City argues that it continued to detain Hernandez only because it was complying with the Governmentʹs detainer. The Complaint, however, has plausibly alleged that both the Government and the City were at fault, for it plausibly alleges that both failed to make an inquiry when circumstances warranted an inquiry, and verification could have been obtained with minimal effort. As a consequence of those failings, Hernandez was deprived of his freedom for four days. See Brignoni‐Ponce, 422 U.S. at 878 (ʺThe Fourth Amendment applies to all seizures of the person, including seizures that involve only a brief detention short of traditional arrest.ʺ); Dunaway, 442 U.S. at 216 (ʺ[D]etention for custodial interrogation ‐‐ regardless of its label ‐‐ intrudes so severely on interests protected by the Fourth Amendment as necessarily to trigger the traditional safeguards against illegal arrest.ʺ)."