A couple of 10th Circuit cases and S. Ct. news. First, the 10th:

Dodds v. Richardson, 2010 WL 3064002 (8/6/10) (Okl) (Published) - The 10th affirms a denial of qualified immunity in the context of a summary judgment where the sheriff had a policy of refusing to allow a person arrested for a felony to post bond until the arrestee was arraigned. As a result of the policy, the plaintiff spent a weekend in jail in violation of the due process right to post bail and be freed from detention once bail is set. The plaintiff was unnecessarily detained without a legitimate goal. The sheriff could not rely on the fact that the policy had been set by a prior sheriff, had been practiced for a long time, was initiated by the court clerk's office and the district courts and he did not personally order the particular plaintiff's over-detention. The existence of the policy established the "affirmative link" between the plaintiff's detention and the sheriff and the deliberate indifference of the sheriff, given the sheriff's responsibility under state law to run the jail and accept bail. The S. Ct's recent decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009), did not eliminate supervisor liability under these circumstances. The constitutional law on the matter was clearly established at the time of the detention. The sheriff failed to adequately raise the "extraordinary circumstance" argument that he reasonably relied on the court clerk and district court policies.

Lopez v. Zenon, 2010 WL 3069687 (8/6/10) (Colo) (unpub'd) - In a habeas case, it was not unreasonable for the state court to find the petitioner's statement voluntary under the following circumstances. The mother held a loaded gun to the petitioner's head and threatened to kill him, herself and his younger sister [presumably not in that order] unless he went to the police station and talked to the investigating officer about the fatal shooting of the mother's husband. Officers, along with the mother, interrogated the petitioner on five consecutive days. The officer began the first interrogation by saying: "your mother has been goin' through some hell. And she's gettin' to the point where she's homicidal/suicidal." The mother was very active in asking questions the first two days. On the second day, an officer showed the petitioner a picture of his deceased stepfather. The 10th assumed the mother acted as a state agent. The 10th supported the voluntariness determination by pointing to the following: the repeated Miranda warnings and advice that he was free to leave; the petitioner stayed at his grandmother's house every night; he only confessed on the later days when his mother did not actively participate; and he remained "cool, calm and collected."

Springer v. Albin, 2010 WL 3035908 (8/5/10) (Okl) (unpub'd) - The 4th Amendment does not protect the interest in regaining possession of one's lawfully-seized property. Consequently, the plaintiff could not get 4th Amendment relief for officers stealing $2,000 out of $19,000 lawfully seized from the plaintiff's house. [The other $17,000 was returned]. Maybe the plaintiff could have sought relief based on deprivation of property without due process, but he did not make that allegation.

S. Ct. news:

In re Khadr, 2010 WL 3064639 (8/4/10) (per curiam) - The S. Ct. refuses to grant a writ of mandamus to prevent a trial by military tribunal of a Guantanamo Bay detainee. The defendant has an adequate alternative of challenging the Military Commissions Act on appeal after a final judgment.