In Hill v. Cook County, an Illinois Appellate Court upheld a circuit court’s ruling in favor of government defendants in a malicious prosecution
claim.
An arrestee sued the county, the county sheriff, and a municipality and various police
officers for claims arising from an arrest in connection with an alleged armed
robbery. The arrestee claimed that upon his arrest, he
entered into an agreement with police that he would not be rearrested or
charged in connection with the incident if he passed a polygraph test.
At his criminal trial, the court found
the agreement unenforceable because a prosecutor was not involved in the
agreement. Subsequently, the arrestee was sentenced to lengthy prison sentences for
murder, attempted murder, and armed robbery convictions.
He appealed his
conviction, arguing that the court erred in finding his arrest agreement
with police invalid. While his appeal was pending, the Illinois Supreme Court
decided People v. Stapinski, holding that prosecutors could
be bound by agreements made by police officers, and his agreement with police was later found valid and his
conviction was vacated.
After his conviction was vacated, he filed an
action for malicious prosecution against the government defendants. Because the vacation of his conviction was
based on contract law and due process principles, and not the probability of his
innocence, the Appellate Court held that the government defendants could not be held liable
for malicious prosecution, and the trial court’s ruling in favor of the government defendants was proper.
Post Authored by Luigi Laudando & Julie Tappendorf, Ancel Glink
