Jail inmates file federal lawsuit over arraignment delays

A federal lawsuit has been filed on behalf of two Whitley County inmates, who say after they were arrested last month, they were locked up in the Clay County Jail for more than 11 days without being taken before a judge for arraignment.
Attorney’s David Hoskins of Corbin and Brenda Popplewell of Somerset filed the lawsuit Sept. 12 in U.S. District Court in London on behalf of their clients, Daniel Grubb and Raymond Lewis.
The lawsuit names Whitley County Judge-Executive Mike Patrick, the Whitley County Fiscal Court, the Clay County Fiscal Court, and Clay County Jailer Charles Marcum as defendants.
The lawsuit alleges that Grubb was arrested after ordinary working hours on Aug. 26, and incarcerated in the Clay County Jail, which has been holding several Whitley County prisoners since that facility closed in July. The was reportedly held for 11 days before being arraigned.
“Thus far, plaintiff Grubb has been incarcerated for 17 days, and has not been taken before a judge for a determination on probably cause for his arrest,” the lawsuit stated.
Lewis was arrested after ordinary working hours on Aug. 12, and was taken to the Clay County Jail where he stayed for 13 days until he was able to post bond. His arraignment won’t be until next week, Hoskins said.
“The one question I have is how can somebody be in jail for two weeks, and the jailer not make sure that they get stuck in front of the video camera for arraignment, and that has happened,” Hoskins said. “One guy was in jail for nearly two weeks, and was not even arraigned.
“All they had to do was take him out of the cell, and put him in front of the camera. We are real concerned that people like that are getting lost in the shuffle. Constitutional rights are valuable to everybody.”
The lawsuit contends that after the Whitley County Jail closed, Patrick and his fiscal court had a legal duty to contract with a jail and county that was willing to follow the law and protect the constitutional rights of those arrested in Whitley County.
The lawsuit contends that when Clay County agreed to incarcerate the prisoners, the jailer in that county had a duty to follow the law, and make arrangements to ensure that citizens incarcerated there had a prompt judicial determination on probable cause, and that their constitutional rights were protected.
“It was the deliberate conduct of all the defendants in failing to bring the plaintiffs before a judge for a probable cause determination within 48 hours that was the moving force behind the injuries suffered by the plaintiffs,” the lawsuit alleges.
Hoskins said this case isn’t about the county shipping prisoners off to Clay County and other areas.
“It doesn’t matter where they take them to. Prisoners can be held anywhere, but whereever they are held, they have to be provided with all their constitutional rights,” Hoskins said. “It is my concern that in all the politics and turmoil, and accusations of wrongdoing connected with the Whitley County Jail that some really important things are being overlooked.
“In just looking at the criminal rules, the jailer, who has custody of the prisoners, is supposed to communicate to the court that they have these people.”
The lawsuit alleges that Grubb and Lewis’ fourth amendment rights were violated because they were denied a prompt judicial determination of probably cause after being arrested.
Hoskins said an arraignment isn’t normally a probable cause hearing, but that his clients didn’t even get that in a 48 hour period.
“The United States Supreme Court has said that anybody, who is arrested without a warrant has an absolute right to a probable cause determination within 48 hours,” Hoskins said. “The mechanism that we have in Kentucky for that is a preliminary hearing. It may well be in a lot of cases people would agree to waive that 48 hours so that they can have a meaningful cause and determination.
“The procedure in Kentucky is there is an arraignment and then typically up to a week later there is a preliminary hearing -when they don’t get arraigned, they don’t even get the benefit of that rule.”
Hoskins added there is a Kentucky criminal rule that calls for a preliminary hearing to be held within 10 days of someone being arrested, which he doesn’t think meets the requirements the Supreme Court has laid down, but that some defendants aren’t even getting the benefit of that rule.
“In this case we have people that have waited a lot longer than that. It’s just not right. Some of these people may actually not be guilty of felonies, and they don’t get their bond reviewed and they don’t get in front of a judge. We just don’t want that to happen,” Hoskins said.
The lawsuit asks that a federal judge rule that the Fourth Amendment rights of the plaintiffs were violated, and that an injunction be granted to keep the defendants from delaying probable cause hearings for arrestees by more than 48 hours.
The lawsuit also asks that a federal judge certify the case as a class action lawsuit, and that the plaintiffs be awarded court costs and attorney fees.
Alternatively, if a declaratory judgment isn’t issued, the lawsuit asks for a trial by jury, and for compensatory and punitive damages to be awarded.
Hoskins said the lawsuit doesn’t seek to have the charges thrown out of court, and that it won’t really impact the outcome of those criminal cases.
“This is a separate issue. There isn’t really a remedy in a criminal case, but there may be a remedy related to whether or not these people are kept in custody. This will not have ramifications, which will lead to a dismissal based on the merits of the case I don’t believe,” Hoskins said.
He said this lawsuit isn’t just to ensure the rights of his clients, but of future defendants as well.
“It is ensure the rights of all persons, who may come into the court. By protecting everybody’s rights, even the criminal defendant’s rights, then your rights and my rights have value,” Hoskins said.
Hoskins said he doesn’t know if this is the case of two or three people slipping through the system, or whether it is indicative of a larger problem.
“I know in these two cases their rights were violated. Based on that we think there needs to be a remedy, and we need to do whatever we think is necessary to make sure it doesn’t happen to someone else. I have a hard time thinking I just lucked up, and got the only two or three people that have these problems,” Hoskins said.
“Some of these people, when they hire a lawyer they get some attention paid to their case. Folks, who have not been arraigned, don’t even have a public defender appointed. If they can’t afford to hire a lawyer and they are not even being taken before the camera for an arraignment, then they are sitting in the jail without representation, and without anybody in any meaningful capacity to do something for them.”
Hoskins said he anticipates that more plaintiffs will be named to the lawsuit, and that he already has one additional name.
“I’m sure that if there are two or three that have contacted me, then there are others that fit into that category,” Hoskins said.
Patrick referred comment about the lawsuit to Whitley County Attorney Paul Winchester, who said Monday afternoon that he hadn’t yet seen a copy of the lawsuit so he couldn’t comment on it.