Canadian couple can proceed with due process claims after husband’s wrongful US arrest

The case of by a 75-year-old Canadian schoolteacher who was wrongfully arrested and jailed for nearly two weeks on California child sex crime charges could have implication for familial relation rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.(CN) — The wife of a 75-year-old retired Canadian schoolteacher got the green light on Monday to pursue familial relationship claims against California cops that wrongfully arrested her husband whom they suspected of sending sexually explicit messages to a minor.Richard Zilinskas was arrested and imprisoned by police officers of Monterey County, California, for 13 days in October 2024 after he and his wife Mildred crossed into the United States from their home in Ontario, Canada, to visit Niagara Falls for the day.U.S. District Judge Casey Pitts sided with Mildred Zilinskas’ claims that her husband’s arrest violated her Fourteenth Amendment due process rights by familial association.“The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized the fundamental right to marriage," the Joe Biden appointee wrote. “It would be counterintuitive to recognize the fundamental importance of marriage while also denying a spouse constitutional protection for the companionship of the other.”Whether this constitutional right only includes parent-child relationships or spousal relationships has caused a split in federal appeals courts that the plaintiffs’ attorney Jeffrey Walker was surprised had not been settled.“The Ninth Circuit has very expressly punted on the issue as to whether this is an appropriate claim to bring or not,” Walker told Courthouse News in a phone interview.He described the ruling as a victory for the Zilinskases, and for constitutional rights, including both the Fourteenth and Fourth Amendments, in general.“The case as a whole is an important case to the Fourth Amendment,” Walker said. “The portion of the order regarding familial relation relationships to include spouses could have important Fourteenth Amendment consequences within the Ninth Circuit.”The Monterey Police Department was investigating a 48-year-old man from Ohio named David who had, apparently, used Mildred Zilinskas’ phone number at random to communicate with a 13-year-old girl in an online chatroom about meeting up at a hotel room, the couple says in their September 2025 complaint.The couple say Detective Michael Garcia and Deputy District Attorney Billie Gibson knew Richard Zilinskas did not match the description of the suspect, but still arrested him on suspicion of four felonies and held in jail for nearly two weeks. The pair are named as defendants, alongside the city and county, and its district attorney.The overzealousness of the police department ultimately resulted in an innocent man being arrested, Walker said.“Child predation is a very serious issue and needs serious police work and child predators need to be caught,” he said. “But that doesn’t mean you can point your finger at anybody and claim them to be a child predator under the guise of protecting children.”A few months after his arrest, all charges against Zilinskas were dropped and a state court issued a factual finding that he was innocent of all charges.Pitts also denied the city defendants’ motion to dismiss the couple’s Bane Act claim against Garcia, who launched the investigation into Richard Zilinskas. The California law allows plaintiffs to file civil suits against others who have denied them their constitutional rights through violence, intimidation and coercion.“The court has already found that plaintiffs sufficiently allege that Garcia committed at least one constitutional violation when he caused Richard to be unreasonably seized through judicial deception,” Pitts wrote. “The judicial deception claim is therefore sufficient to plead the threats, intimidation, or coercion as required by the Bane Act, given that Richard’s arrest undoubtedly involved coercion. Plaintiffs also show specific intent by alleging that Garcia intended for Richard to be arrested and that the detective knew he had no probable cause to believe that Richard was guilty of those crimes."However, Pitts did dismiss the Bane Act claim against the county and Gibson, as well as Mildred Zilinskas’ state claim for loss of consortium.A spokesperson for the defendants in Monterey did not respond to requests for comment.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads