Monthly Law Journal Article: Disturbed/Suicidal Persons -- Part One, 2012 (2) AELE Mo. L. J. 101
     Monthly Law Journal Article: Disturbed/Suicidal Persons -- Part Two, 2012 (3) AELE Mo. L. J. 101.
    Police took a man into custody in response to his parents' report that he might be a danger to himself or others. They intended to transport him to a mental health facility. During a search of his person, they found his wallet, but failed to discover a razor blade concealed within it, letting him retain possession of the wallet. While being transported in their squad car, the man used the razor blade to kill himself. Rejecting a claim that the officers acted with deliberate indifference to the decedent's risk of suicide, a federal appeals court noted that the officers acted with compassion and a desire to protect him as evidenced by the very fact that they searched him and inspected the contents of his wallets, albeit imperfectly. Rosario v. Brawn, #11-2072, 670 F.3d 816 (7th Cir. 2012).
     A teenager was discovered at home by his mother. holding a knife to his abdomen. He had made a suicide attempt approximately a month before. Police respond to a 911 call. The youth challenged officers to "fucking shoot me." An officer shot and killed him as he ignored orders to drop the knife, instead advancing on the officer while raising the knife in a threatening manner. The use of deadly force was justified. Elizondo v. Green, #10–11177, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 2917 (5th Cir.).
     Police responded to a 911 call concerning a schizophrenic, bipolar, and suicidal man who had stopped taking his medication and was threatening to harm his mother. The officers weren't liable for shooting and killing him when he came towards them armed with knives as they entered his locked and barricaded bedroom. They acted in reasonable self-defense, and they were entitled to qualified immunity on their warrantless entry into the bedroom based on their belief that there were exigent circumstances justifying their entry because the man constituted a threat to himself. Rockwell v. Brown, #10–11053, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 24980 (5th Cir.).
     Police responded to a 911 call concerning an intoxicated man threatening to kill himself with a pocket knife. He ignored their orders to drop the knife, instead holding it to his throat. The officers used a beanbag shot gun to subdue and disarm him. When he stepped away, and moved towards his parents' house, they shot and killed him. A federal appeals court ruled that the use of the beanbag shotgun may have been excessive, noting that the officers had the option of using the less extreme force of a Taser, but did not do so. The court stated that it was not aware of any published cases holding it reasonable to use a significant amount of force to try to stop someone from attempting suicide." The subsequent gunfire may also have been excessive. Summary judgment for the defendants was reversed, and further proceedings were ordered on the excessive force claims. Glenn v. Washington County, #10-35636, 661 F.3d 460 (9th Cir. 2011).
     An excessive force claim against a police chief lacked merit where he was not involved in the removal of an allegedly suicidal man from his parked car by force, including the firing of pepper balls at him. He also was not in a supervisory role over those who removed the man, who were members of an inter-departmental emergency response team. Backes v. Village of Peoria Heights, #10-3748, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 22652 (7th Cir.).
     Police could not be held liable for the successful suicide of a detainee who killed himself fourteen hours after they released him, despite having heard his threats at the police station, following his one-car accident, to kill himself. The court ruled that there had been no due process violation, in the absence of "a risk of harm created or intensified by state action." His release from police custody placed him in no worse a position than he would have been in had the officers not acted at all. Coscia v. Town of Pembroke, MA, #10-1714, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 18933 (1st Cir.).
     A deputy acted within his discretionary authority by briefly removing an allegedly suicidal woman from her home to speak with her and observe her to see if there were grounds for taking her into custody for evaluation. After doing so, he let her go, finding no such grounds. He was entitled to qualified immunity in her civil rights lawsuit, as his conduct did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Roberts v. Spielman, #10-13820, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 11995 (11th Cir.)
     Police officers struggled with a screaming uncontrollable man suffering from bipolar disorder and schizophrenia running around his house naked. Following a violent struggle, they eventually subdued and restrained him in a "hobble"—a cord that is looped around a suspect's lower legs and then connected to a strap that is attached to handcuffs. A few minutes after he was hobbled, he stopped breathing. The officers removed the hobble, attempted CPR, and called for an ambulance, but he never regained consciousness, and died. A federal civil rights lawsuit by his estate claimed that officers inadequately responded to his medical needs during his arrest, and that the city failed to properly train the officers on the use of the hobble. Affirming summary judgment for the defendants, a federal appeals court ruled that the officers began CPR and called paramedics as soon as they realized the man was not breathing, satisfying a Fourth Amendment reasonableness standard, and that the officers did not violate the man's Fourth Amendment rights by the manner in which they used the hobble, so the city could not be held liable for failing to properly train them. Sallenger v. City of Springfield, #08-3769, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 25803 (7th Cir.).
     A woman's disturbed son, who had murdered his wife years ago, stopped taking his medication, obtained a gun, and threatened to kidnap certain family members. Officers seeking to have him committed went to his apartment, and his mother tried to get him to come out, but instead he started shooting. The plan of extraction developed by a police investigator had involved the mother knocking on the front door while officers remained in front of the house, but out of sight of the son. Both the mother and her son were shot and killed during the ensuing gun battle. The decedents' estates and family members sued, claiming that the officers were responsible for the deaths under a "state-created danger" theory of liability. The officers were entitled to qualified immunity because the state-created danger theory was not clearly established in the 5th Circuit at the time of the incident. Judgment was also entered for the city, as the plaintiffs did not successfully create an issue of fact as to whether the city's review of the officers' conduct violated department rules in a manner that rose to the level of "ratification" so that the city would be liable for the officers' conduct. Saenz v. City of McAllen, #09-41072, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 20464 (Unpub. 5th Cir.).
     Officers did not violate a man's Fourth Amendment rights in handcuffing a man, searching his van, luggage, and apartment, and taking him to a hospital, where he voluntarily was hospitalized for treatment, after they received information from a hot line operator stating that the man had stated that he was suicidal, possessed weapons at his residence, and that he "could understand" why people would shoot others at work. The officers spoke to a co-worker to determine that the threats should be taken seriously, and there were exigent circumstances justifying the warrantless actions taken to both determine the scope of the threat and to defuse it. Under these circumstances, seizing the man's weapons was justified, and the continued retention of the weapons by police was not a due process violation when the man subsequently failed to follow available state law procedures to get his property returned. Mora v. City of Gaithersburg, No. 06-2158, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 4561 (4th Cir.).
     Police officer did not act unreasonably in detaining a man and taking him to a state hospital for mental evaluation after he pointed a finger in the officer's face during a conversation about his claim that government officials had been harassing him. At the hospital, he was diagnosed with "psychotic disorder--not otherwise specified." His statements indicated that he would follow police and try to "get to the bottom" of the purported attacks on him showed that there was a substantial risk that he would engage in dangerous and irrational behavior and that he was mentally ill. Nothing that the officer did was "shocking" to the conscience or violated his rights. He also did not produce any evidence that the officer gave false information about him to hospital personnel. Simon v. Cook, No. 06-6514, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 2381 (6th Cir.).
     In a lawsuit over the suicide of an arrestee who shot himself in the backseat after obtaining a deputy sheriff's gun left on the front passenger seat of the deputy's vehicle, there was no evidence that the deputy was deliberately indifferent to a known risk of harm. Gish v. Thomas, No. 07-12368, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 2494 (11th Cir.).
     Officer did not violate the rights of a woman with bipolar disorder by handcuffing her arms behind her back and using leg irons to cuff her to a grate in a cell after taking her into custody for protective reasons because she indicated that she might engage in self mutilation. The officer's actions did not shock the conscience since she was only restrained after she threatened her own safety and had shown that having her hands cuffed behind her back was an inadequate form of restraint. The restraints were only applied until the woman could be taken to a medical facility. Norris v. Engles, 06-3394, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 18838 (8th Cir.).
     Alabama deputy sheriff acted reasonably in shooting and killing a mentally unstable man who took possession of a marked sheriff's cruiser when he was informed that he was going to be arrested, and began backing away. The deputy who shot him warned that he would be shot if he did not stop his escape. The decedent could have used to car to injure or kill someone, especially since it cloaked him with the "apparent authority' of a police officer. Long v. Slaton, No. 06-14439, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 26573 (11th Cir.).
     Deputies did not act unreasonably in shooting and killing a mentally disturbed man who posed a threat of serious physical harm. The man had placed a large sign in his front yard that said, "no police you be shot." The suspect came out of his mobile home holding something the officers believed to be a handgun and took a kneeling stance that was believed to be a shooting position, pointing it in the direction of an officer. The suspect responded to commands to drop the object by yelling, "Shoot me, Shoot me." The suspect was subsequently shot and killed as he was charging towards the officers. Summerland v. County of Livingston, No. 06-1975, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 21045 (6th Cir.).
     Police officers did not violate a man's rights by using pepper spray on him in the back seat of their car, where they placed him after finding him intoxicated. The officers feared that he was suicidal, based on his behavior, and were trying to assist him. He was unsecured in the backseat of the car because he was uncooperative, and he started kicking the plexiglass separating the front and backseats, and beating his head on it. The pepper spray was only used after it was clear that repeated orders would not cause him to stop this behavior, and after the man was given a warning about the use of the spray, and was motivated by a fear that the man might harm himself. After they cleaned the residue of the pepper spray off of his face outside the police/fire station, he attempted to stand up, despite their statements that he should not try to do so, and fell, hitting his head and suffering injuries that allegedly led to his death from a swelling on his brain. The court found that the decedent would not have suffered his fatal fall except for his own conduct in disregarding the warnings of the defendant officers, so that they could not be held liable for his death. Cabaniss v. City of Riverside, No. 06-3546, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 8271 (6th Cir.).
     Police officer who failed to detain allegedly disturbed woman when he did not observe her engaging in any behavior presenting a danger to herself or others was not liable for her death the following day when she was shot and killed by several officers during a confrontation. While the decedent's family claimed that he had stated that the woman had, earlier in the day, run down the street with her clothes off and screaming that she was on fire, and later had to be preventing from jumping out of a window, the officer did not observe such behavior. When a jury found that the officer acted with gross negligence, but not willful misconduct, the officer was entitled to immunity from liability under a Pennsylvania state statute. Riley v. Paugouzas, No. 959, 2007 Phila. Ct. Com. Pl. Lexis 108 (Civil Trial Div.).
     In a lawsuit over the death of a mentally impaired man holding a screwdriver, who three officers shot and killed, the trial court properly denied summary judgment to the officers, based on the existence of factual disputes about whether the decedent had posed an immediate threat to the officers when he was shot. The appeals court found, further, that the trial court had committed an error in considering the actions of all three of the officers together, and that it should, on remand, consider each of the officers' actions by themselves to determine whether any of them had used unreasonable force. Meadours v. Ermel, No. 05-20764, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 7592 (5th Cir.).
     Estate of paranoid schizophrenic shot and killed by police who came to his house in response to a 911 call from his family requesting assistance failed to show that more adequate training as to how to respond to incidents involving mentally disturbed persons would have resulted in a different result. The court found that the officers did not create the dangerous situation. Thao v. City of St. Paul, No. 06-2339, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 7553 (8th Cir.).
     Police officers had probable cause to detain an allegedly suicidal paraplegic woman as well as exigent circumstances justifying their warrantless entry into her home to seize her without a warrant, based on statements that her 12-year-old son made to a 911 operator that she was "going crazy," and "trying to kill herself." Officers could not be held liable for violation of her federal civil rights even if their actions arguably did not comply with all provisions of an Oklahoma state statute dealing with emergency detention of mentally ill persons. West v. Keef, No. 05-6353, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 5846 (10th Cir.).
     Police chief and officers were not liable under Ohio state law for failure to prevent man's suicide in the absence of any showing that they acted with a malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner in responding to reports that he had acted "suspicious" when unsuccessfully attempting to purchase a firearm at a store. In the absence of such a showing, they were entitled to immunity from liability for actions carried out within the scope of their employment under a state statute. Schoenfield v. Navarre, No. L-05-1082, 843 N.E.2d 234 (Ohio App. 2005). [N/R]
     No reasonable juror, federal appeals court rules, could find that a police officer violated a schizophrenic suspect's rights by shooting and killing him seconds after he stabbed another officer with a butcher knife. Untalan v. City of Lorain, No. 04-4489, 430 F.3d 312 (6th Cir. 2005). [2006 LR Feb]
     State of Maine was not liable for the death of a mentally ill man shot and killed by police as he was attempting to stab an officer with a knife in his residence. The state's alleged inadequate provision of mental health services, if proven, did not have a disparate impact on the decedent, in violation of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) provisions prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disabilities by public entities, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132, as he was not denied any public service available to able members of the public. Buchanan v. Maine, No. CIV.04-26, 366 F. Supp. 2d 169 (D. Me. 2005). [N/R]
     Parents of mentally ill man who died, allegedly of positional asphyxia, after being taken into custody by police officers, stated a claim for violation of his civil rights by asserting that the officers, who transported him to a hospital, handcuffed and hog-tied, in a face-down position, had noticed his irregular breathing, but failed to adjust his position at that time. Court also finds a possibly viable claim for disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12132, based on alleged failure to provide adequate training for officers in handling encounters with mentally ill persons. Arnold v. City of York, No. 4:CV-03-1352, 340 F. Supp. 2d 550 (M.D. Pa. 2004). [N/R]
     City was immune under Indiana state common law and could not be held liable for officer's alleged negligent failure to prevent suicide of man who had threatened to shoot himself in the chest. Savieo v. City of New Haven, 02A03-0407-CV-317, 824 N.E.2d 1272 (Ind. App. 2005). [N/R]
     Officer did not act unreasonably in shooting a man in the head with a non-lethal projectile in order to prevent his suicide after he refused to drop a knife he was pointing at his own heart. The force used was not excessive, despite the fact that it resulted in a skull fracture, brain damage, and disabling injuries. Mercado v. City of Orlando, #6:03-cv-227-ORL-18KRS, 323 F.Supp. 2d 1266 (M.D. Fla. 2004). [2004 LR Oct]
     Police officer who shot and killed suicidal man who attempted to stand in front of moving traffic on a highway, told him that "I am Jesus Christ [...] I am going to die and so are you!" and then attacked him, was entitled to qualified immunity from liability, as he acted in reasonable self defense. Kesinger v. Conner, No. 03-13883, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 18160 (11th Cir. 2004). [2004 LR Oct]
     Deputies serving judicial warrant for involuntary mental health confinement of disturbed man who had threatened to kill his sister did not act unreasonably in entering his apartment without knocking and announcing their purpose. Genuine issues of disputed fact as to the level of the disturbed man's "provocation" and resistance to the officers precluded summary judgment on his excessive force claims. Linbrugger v. Abercia, No. 02-221300, 363 F.3d 537 (5th Cir. 2004). [2004 LR Aug]
     Police officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment rights of mental patient they placed in wrist and ankle restraints at the request of mental health facility staff members. Patient's history of violent outbursts and mental conditions made the action reasonable. Officers were also entitled to qualified immunity for allegedly leaving patient in restraints when they left, after being told by staff that patient was about to be escorted to another facility. Lucero v. City of Albuquerque, No. 02-2280, 77 Fed Appx. 470 (10th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
     State highway officials did not violate the constitutional rights of man who committed suicide by jumping off of Golden Gate Bridge, based on their failure to erect a suicide barrier there. The defendants' awareness of a history of suicides on the bridge and the opening of the bridge to pedestrians was insufficient to impose a Fourteenth Amendment due process duty on them to prevent the decedent's suicide, in the absence of any "special relationship" with him. Imrie v. Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transp., 282 F. Supp. 2d 1145 (N.D. Cal. 2003). [N/R]
     Federal appeals court lacked jurisdiction to hear appeal of denial of qualified immunity to officers who shot man with a history of mental illness who they shot several times after responding to his 911 call. Trial court found that there were genuine contested issues of material fact, and appeals could not review that finding. Goffney v. Carr, #03-20072, 78 Fed. Appx. 974 (5th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
     Officers acted reasonably in shooting man who allegedly failed to obey orders to put down an 8.5" knife which he had when they responded to his sister's call that he was "going crazy" and needed to "be committed somewhere." No evidence contradicted officers' testimony that the man charged at an officer with the knife, as sister's claim that her brother was trying to lay the knife on a picnic table after withdrawing it from a sheath was "pure speculation," given that she was not present at the time. Santana v. City of Hartford, 283 F. Supp. 2d 720 (D. Conn. 2003). [N/R]
    Officers acted reasonably in using pepper spray in an attempt to subdue an emotionally disturbed suicidal man who was armed with an axe and had previously taken hostages, and in shooting and killing him when he responded to the pepper spray by lifting the axe and running towards them. Isom v. Town of Warren, No. 03-1765, 360 F.3d 7 (1st Cir. 2004). [2004 LR May]
     Estate of mentally ill man shot and killed by police officers after use of bean bag pellets and pepper spray failed to subdue him presented a genuine issue of fact as to whether officers had been inadequately trained in dealing with mentally ill persons and in the use of impact projectiles, and whether the alleged inadequate training caused his death. Herrera v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, 298 F. Supp. 2d 1043 (D. Nev. 2004). [N/R]
     Police officers were not entitled to qualified immunity in lawsuit brought by family of mentally ill man they shot and killed while he was driving his vehicle towards a toll plaza. Plaintiffs claimed that the officers shot him multiple times at close range and continued firing after all officers were out of the way of his vehicle, intending to hurt or kill him. Waterman v. Batton, 294 F. Supp. 2d 709 (D. Md. 2003). [2004 LR Apr]
     Officer was not entitled to qualified immunity on claim that he shot a mentally ill man in the stomach as he pointed a butcher knife towards himself with suicidal intentions, as deadly force is only permissible when a suspect poses an imminent threat to an officer or to others. Buchanan v. City of Milwaukee, 290 F. Supp. 2d 954 (E.D. Wis. 2003). [2004 LR Mar]
     Officers alleged continued use of physical force after a man was subdued and restrained violated clearly established law and, if as plaintiff described, was excessive as used against a man who had committed no crime. Officers also lacked probable cause to restrain him for an involuntary mental evaluation solely on the basis of a neighbor's 911 call reporting that he was suicidal. Bailey v. Kennedy, No. 02-1761, 349 F.3d 731 (4th Cir. 2003). [2004 LR Feb]
     Sheriff and SWAT team members were not entitled to qualified immunity for death of man shot and killed in his home after he resisted being taken into custody for a psychiatric evaluation. If plaintiff's factual allegations were true, and decedent was in the process of surrendering when he was shot and killed, use of deadly force against him was clearly excessive. Warrantless entry into the home when the man had "not committed" any crimes and there was no immediate need to subdue him was "reckless" and an excessive use of force. Federman v. County of Kern, No. 01-16691, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 7180 (9th Cir.). [2003 LR Jun]
     Officers were properly granted summary judgment in lawsuit brought by suicidal man armed with knives who threatened his wife and officers and then was subdued by shooting him with "beanbag" rounds. Officers' use of force was objectively reasonable under the circumstances, and appeals court expresses agreement with trial judge that plaintiff should have "thanked" rather than sued the officers. Bell v. Irwin, #02-2262, 321 F.3d 637, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 3415 (7th Cir.). [2003 LR Apr]
     Family of former police officer and Vietnam vet with post-traumatic stress disorder, who died in the woods near his home after fleeing there in response to activation of SWAT-like team around his residence after officers saw a "red light" coming from a window in the home, presented sufficient evidence to create a jury question as to whether activation of SWAT team and its tactics created a foreseeable danger to the decedent in a manner shocking to the conscience. Estate of Smith v. Marasco, #02-1437, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 1432 (3rd Cir. 2003). [2003 LR Mar]
     City and officers were not liable for deaths of deranged husband and his son which arose from a two-day armed standoff with police and ended in a murder-suicide. Exigent circumstances supported a warrantless entry into the home based on the damage to the wife and son based on the husband's conduct, and the use of force, including tear gas, a battering ram and incendiary devices was reasonable, rather than excessive, under the circumstances. Ewolski v. City of Brunswick, #00-3066, 287 F.3d 492 (6th Cir. 2002). [2002 LR Oct]
     345:141 Police officer who failed to take action to rescue mentally ill man who died after setting fire to his own house did not violate his constitutional rights; officer knew man to have a history of mental illness and a propensity for violence; lawsuit alleged that officers interfered with firefighters' attempt to put out the fire. Lansdown v. Chadwick, No. 00-3596, 258 F.3d 754 (8th Cir. 2001).
     340:60 Federal appeals court rules that hog-tie restraints should not be used when it presents a significant risk to a suspect's health or well being because of diminished mental capacity, whether based on intoxication or a mental condition; officers were individually entitled to qualified immunity, but inadequate training claims against city could go forward in lawsuit over death of naked man who died after being restrained with hog-tie. Cruz v. City of Laramie, No. 99-8045, 99-8049, 99-8050, 239 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir. 2001).
     340:51 Police supervisor who dispatched officers to a field where a youth was threatening to kill himself had no liability for the youth's subsequent death based on his failure to issue detailed commands via radio to those on the scene; no "coverup" was shown simply based on his instructions to two officers to prepare a joint report rather than writing individual accounts, when he had no reason to think any crime had occurred. Ford v. Moore, No. 99- 9303L, 99-9305, 99-9315, 237 F.3d 156 (2nd Cir. 2001).
     301:3 Village was not liable for inadequate training of officers in dealing with abnormally acting individuals when there was no evidence of knowledge of a need for further training in this area; officer who shot and killed disturbed individual who asked police to kill him found to have used excessive force and jury awards $165,000 in damages. Palmquist v. Selvik, 111 F.3d 1332 (7th Cir. 1997).
     302:21 Deputy's shooting and killing of mentally disturbed man was not disability discrimination in absence of showing that decedent was a "qualified individual with a disability" or that he was somehow "denied public services" because of such a disability. Thompson v. Williamson County, 965 F.Supp. 1026 (M.D. Tenn. 1997).
     302:29 Officers were not liable for man's stabbing of his brother almost three weeks after they failed to detain him for a psychiatric examination pursuant to a judicial order; attack was too remote in time to demonstrate that failure to detain was the legal cause of the attack. Rodriguez- Cirilo v. Garcia, 115 F.3d 50 (1st Cir. 1997).
     304:60 Officers did not create a danger for which they could be held liable when they returned a gun to a mentally disturbed individual who was later shot by officers who surrounded his residence in response to a report of a "barricaded" man; later incident was not foreseeable. DiJoseph v. City of Philadelphia, 953 F.Supp. 602 (E.D. Pa. 1997).
     305:70 Officer had probable cause to take depressed man into protective custody based on his consumption of alcohol, number of pills which appeared to be missing from his medication, and his phone call to psychologist; use of pepper spray to restrain man and take him to hospital was reasonable when officer had reason to believe man might be attempting suicide. Monday v. Oullette, 118 F.3d 1099 (6th Cir. 1997).