Dissent

The main opinion of dissent was held by Justice Scalia who overall felt that the Bill of Rights had already addressed this need for balance between the concern for public safety and the avoidance of prolonged detention of arrestees. Also he criticized the majority’s idea of balancing noting that the Fourth amendment was intended to “put this matter beyond time, place and judicial predilection.” He felt that if you were going to deprive someone of their civil liberties that it should be on a schedule based on the time it takes to process and find a magistrate, not at the convenience of the state. "One hears the complaint, nowadays, that the Fourth Amendment has become constitutional law for the guilty; that it benefits the career criminal (through the exclusionary rule) often and directly, but the ordinary citizen remotely if at all." He went on to criticize the exclusionary rule and lament the lack of protection for those presumed innocent. "While in recent years we have invented novel applications of the Fourth Amendment to release the unquestionably guilty, we today [in the majority's decision in this case] repudiate one of its core applications so that the presumptively innocent may be left in jail."

My Arguement

Overall I would say that I am ok with the decision of the Supreme Court, but I really can’t say that I am so sure as to the exact amount of time that needs to be set for the probable cause hearing to occur. Honestly I have very little knowledge of what administrative processes actually go into processing an arrestee, and I was not able to locate much material to help me understand these processes. Because of this any opinion of mine is purely based on assumptions and estimations. The only part I can honestly make a decision about is the definite need for some sort of period of time that states would be required to complete the processing and probable cause hearing within.

Rule Of Law

This case is a case that has been cited many times since, and has helped to change many states procedures for handling probable cause hearings. The 48 hour rule protects arrestees from sitting in jail for extended periods of time which could have extremely negative impacts on that persons relationships, career, or in fact any aspect of that person’s life. Even though they reversed the decision of the District Courts to make it a 36 hour period, they still clarified the decision of Gerstein v. Pugh (1975) by clearly stating the need for a 48 hour period to hold the probable cause hearing.

Reasoning Of The Court

The majority of the court felt that 48 hours was sufficient to satisfy a prompt probable cause hearing. They also felt that arrestees rights could still be violated if the probable cause hearing were delayed, even if the hearing took place within 48 hours. They said this to avoid unreasonable delays used to gather additional evidence or delays that were just meant to harm the incarcerated. Overall though, they were looking to protect the states from a ruling that might allow the guilty to walk free, or might create a situation for the exclusionary rule to throw away evidence that proves without a doubt, that an arrestee is guilty.

Decision Of The Court

The court of appeals decided that holding the probable cause hearing within 48 hours was not in accordance with the ruling from Gerstein v. Pugh (1975) because they felt that no more than 36 hours would be required to handle the probable cause hearing. They stated that the probable cause hearing must immediately follow the completion of the administrative procedures that are handled directly after the warrantless arrest. The Supreme Court reversed this decision saying that the 48 hour rule was enough time, and the probable cause hearing just needed to take place as soon as is reasonable feasible. They said that absent extraordinary circumstances, prompt means within 48 hours.

Issue Of The Case

The main issue in this case is what determines a reasonable amount of time for a state to hold a probable cause hearing, especially as pertaining to those who are arrested without a warrant. Additionally, since some states and counties, like Riverside, have a policy where they combine probable cause hearings with arraignment hearings, is it acceptable for them to take longer to prepare administratively for this hearing, thus delaying the probable cause hearing. Also, since Riverside County did not include weekends and holidays, it was possible for someone to be held for up to five days or even seven days if the arrest was around the holidays. Overall this case looked to clarify the ruling of Gerstein v. Pugh (1975) as to the meaning of prompt when referring to a prompt probable cause hearing for an arrested person who was not arrested with a warrant.

Facts Of The Case

Donald Lee McLaughlin was incarcerated in the Riverside County Jail in California. He had been arrested without a warrant and had not yet received a hearing, so in August of 1987 he filed a complaint with the US District Court for the Central District of California. His complaint was seeking prompt probable cause, bail, and arraignment hearings for himself plus additional arrestees who had also been arrested without warrant and detained for what he felt was an unreasonable amount of time. The court certified him and the additional prisoners as a class in November of 1988. In March of 1989, the district court issued the injunction which said that the county of Riverside was violating the Supreme Court decision of Gerstein v. Pugh (1975) which required prompt probable cause hearings. Following that, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed with that decision as well as the Fourth and Seventh Circuits. The Second Circuit agreed but felt there was a need for flexibility as to allow the states to combine proceedings at their discretion.