Judge Casey Pitts: Mildred Zilinskas Fourteenth Amendment Familial Association Claim Advances

• A 75-year-old Canadian man was wrongfully arrested and detained for 13 days in California on child sex crime charges, which were later dropped.
• His wife, Mildred Zilinskas, can proceed with a Fourteenth Amendment claim, as a federal judge ruled that spousal familial association rights are protected.
• The ruling by Judge Casey Pitts addresses a split in federal appeals courts regarding the scope of familial association rights beyond parent-child relationships.
• The couple can also pursue a claim under California's Bane Act against a detective for alleged judicial deception leading to the wrongful arrest.
• The decision reinforces potential liability for law enforcement engaging in deceptive practices and expands due process protections for spouses in the Ninth Circuit.

It would be counterintuitive to recognize the fundamental importance of marriage while also denying a spouse constitutional protection for the companionship of the other.

A 75-year-old retired Canadian schoolteacher, Richard Zilinskas, was wrongfully arrested and detained for nearly two weeks in October 2024 by police officers in Monterey County, California. He and his wife, Mildred Zilinskas, had traveled from their home in Ontario, Canada, to visit Niagara Falls for the day when the arrest occurred. Richard was held for 13 days under suspicion of sending sexually explicit messages to a minor, an accusation that the couple's September 2025 complaint alleges was based on a case of mistaken identity.

The complaint details that the Monterey Police Department was investigating a 48-year-old man from Ohio, identified as David, who had reportedly used Mildred Zilinskas' phone number at random to communicate with a 13-year-old girl in an online chatroom about meeting at a hotel. Despite the couple's assertion that Detective Michael Garcia and then-Deputy District Attorney Billie Gibson knew Richard Zilinskas did not match the suspect's description, he was arrested on suspicion of four felonies. Garcia and Gibson, along with the city, county, and its district attorney, are named as defendants in the lawsuit. All charges against Richard Zilinskas were subsequently dropped a few months after his arrest, and a state court issued a factual finding confirming his innocence.

In a significant development for civil liberties, U.S. District Judge Casey Pitts has allowed Mildred Zilinskas to proceed with claims that her husband's arrest violated her Fourteenth Amendment due process rights through familial association. Judge Pitts, a Joe Biden appointee, emphasized the Supreme Court's consistent recognition of the fundamental right to marriage, stating it would be "counterintuitive to recognize the fundamental importance of marriage while also denying a spouse constitutional protection for the companionship of the other."

This `Judge Casey Pitts familial association ruling` addresses a split among federal appeals courts regarding whether this constitutional right extends beyond parent-child relationships to include spousal relationships. Plaintiffs' attorney Jeffrey Walker expressed surprise that this issue, which the `Ninth Circuit spousal due process rights` jurisprudence has "expressly punted on," had not yet been definitively settled. Walker highlighted that the portion of the order concerning familial relationships to include spouses could have substantial `Fourteenth Amendment consequences within the Ninth Circuit`, potentially strengthening civil rights claims for married individuals.

Beyond the federal constitutional claims, Judge Pitts also denied the city defendants' motion to dismiss the couple's claim under California's Bane Act against Detective Garcia. This state law permits individuals to file civil suits against those who deny their constitutional rights through violence, intimidation, or coercion. The court found that the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that Garcia committed at least one constitutional violation by causing Richard Zilinskas to be unreasonably seized through judicial deception.

Judge Pitts concluded that the `California Bane Act judicial deception` claim was adequate to plead the necessary elements of threats, intimidation, or coercion required by the Bane Act, given the circumstances of Richard's arrest. This aspect of the ruling underscores the potential liability for law enforcement officers who engage in deceptive practices that lead to wrongful arrests, reinforcing the importance of due process even at the investigative stage.

The case, stemming from `Richard Zilinskas wrongful US arrest`, is seen by attorney Jeffrey Walker as a victory not only for the Zilinskases but for constitutional rights generally, encompassing both the Fourteenth and Fourth Amendments. Walker stressed the importance of serious police work in addressing issues like child predation but cautioned against falsely accusing individuals under the guise of protecting children. He argued that the "overzealousness" of the police department ultimately led to an innocent man's arrest.

This ruling has significant implications for `Monterey County police due process` and law enforcement practices across the Ninth Circuit. By expanding the scope of `Mildred Zilinskas Fourteenth Amendment familial association` rights to include spouses and affirming potential liability under the Bane Act for judicial deception, the decision provides a stronger legal framework for individuals to challenge wrongful arrests and protect their fundamental constitutional freedoms.

Lawyers in the Ninth Circuit should note this ruling expands Fourteenth Amendment due process rights to include spousal familial association, not just parent-child relationships, strengthening civil rights claims. It also reinforces potential liability under California's Bane Act for law enforcement engaging in judicial deception leading to wrongful arrests.

Source: Original reporting via Courthouse News