In the

United States Court of Appeals

             For the Seventh Circuit

                 ____________________

No. 17-2750

DESTINY HOFFMAN, et al.,

                              Plaintiffs-Appellants,

                          v.

SUSAN KNOEBEL, et al.,

                              Defendants-Appellees.

             ____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, New Albany Division.

   No. 14-CV-00012 -- Sarah Evans Barker, Judge.

             ____________________

ARGUED JANUARY 4, 2018 -- DECIDED JULY 3, 2018
                 ____________________

    Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and HAMILTON and BARRETT,
Circuit Judges.

    WOOD, Chief Judge. Like many jurisdictions, Indiana has
turned to "drug courts" to tackle substance-abuse problems
more flexibly than traditional sentencing regimes might al-
low. Ind. Code § 33-23-16-5. These non-traditional court pro-
grams have been shown to reduce recidivism rates, at least in
some jurisdictions. Compare Michael W. Finigan, et al.,
IMPACT OF A MATURE DRUG COURT OVER 10 YEARS OF
2 No. 17-2750

OPERATION: RECIDIVISM AND COSTS 23­29 (Nat'l Inst. Just.
2007), https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/219225.pdf
(analyzing the successes of the drug court in Portland, Ore-
gon, in reducing recidivism), with Randall T. Brown, System-
atic Review of the Impact of Adult Drug Treatment Courts,
155 J. LABORATORY & CLINICAL MED. 263, 263 (2010) (finding
that "randomized trials failed to demonstrate a consistent ef-
fect on rearrest rates for drug-involved offenders" participat-
ing in drug treatment courts). Unfortunately, the Drug Treat-
ment Court ("DTC") in Clark County, Indiana, was not one of
the success stories. Under the stewardship of Judge Jerome Ja-
cobi, the court ran roughshod over the rights of its partici-
pants, who frequently languished in jail for weeks and even
months without justification. The jail stays imposed as "sanc-
tions" for noncompliance with program conditions were arbi-
trary and issued without due process. DTC staff made arrests
despite a clear lack of authority to do so under state law. After
these abuses were brought to light, numerous participants in
the program filed a putative class action under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, and the Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Judicial
Center shut down the program.

    Indiana's actions may have ended the DTC, but they did
not end the litigation in the district court. That court denied
class certification, dismissed some claims, and resolved most
of the rest of the claims on summary judgment. A final plain-
tiff's claim was settled before trial. In the end, the plaintiffs
failed to win relief. On appeal, we are left with due process
claims by seventeen plaintiffs against three defendants, and
Fourth Amendment claims by three plaintiffs against two de-
fendants. The district court resolved all of these claims in the
defendants' favor at summary judgment. While we have no
doubt that the plaintiffs' constitutional rights were violated,