Swartz v. Insogna

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “the issuance of a pre-arraignment, non-felony summons requiring a later court appearance, without further restrictions, does not constitute a Fourth Amendment seizure.”
• holding that giving the middle finger could not support arrest for disorderly conduct
• stating that a lack of probable cause is an element of a malicious-prosecution claim
• noting that “we decline to apply that dictum to the different context of a plaintiff who was required to appear in court in connection with criminal proceedings initiated by the defendant police officer.”
• noting that the Second Circuit has “consistently held that a post-arraignment defendant who is “obligated to appear in court in connection with [criminal] charges whenever his attendance [i]s required” suffers a deprivation of liberty.”
• noting that the Court of Appeals has “consistently held that a post-arraignment defendant who is ‘obligated to appear in court in connection with [criminal] charges whenever his attendance [i]s required” suffered a Fourth Amendment deprivation of liberty”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).