AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Civil Liability of
Law Enforcement Agencies & Personnel
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
Public Protection: Disturbed/Suicidal Persons
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.
Monthly Law Journal Article: Public Protection: Part Two –
The Mentally Ill or Deranged, 2013 (6) AELE Mo. L. J. 101.
Monthly
Law Joural Article: Police Accommodation of
Mentally Impaired Persons Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (Part One),
2015 (9) AELE Mo. L. J. 101.
Monthly Law Joural Article: Police
Accommodation of Mentally Impaired Persons Under the Americans with
Disabilities Act (Part Two), 2015 (10) AELE Mo. L. J. 101.
Monthly Law Journal
Article: Civil
Liability for Detention for Mental Health Evaluation or Commitment, 2017
(1) AELE Mo. L. J. 101.
In a lawsuit brought against three Boston police officers involved in breaking up a party and arresting a number of those present, a federal appeals court reversed a judgment for the plaintiffs, ruling that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity for entering without a warrant through the open door of a house under the community care taking exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. The jury reached a unanimous verdict in favor of the defendant officers on all counts. The trial court, however, granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial, finding that the verdict was against the law as to the officers’ warrantless entry into the home and that the warrantless entry on the facts as presented in the trial was not protected by qualified immunity. The court then amended its judgment so that it reflected a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs as to the section 1983 unlawful entry claim. The federal appeals reversed, holding that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because, under the community caretaking exception, their entry through the home’s open door did not violate the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, as they arrived at a loud party and saw intoxicated guests who appeared to be underage entering and exiting through an open door. Castagna v. Jean, #19-1677, 2020 U.S. App. Lexis 11357 (1st Cir.).
A man suffering from severe mental illness committed suicide during an interaction with police. His long-time girlfriend sued, claiming that the police department failed to accommodate mentally disabled individuals in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12101-12213. He was depressed, and had broken into a friend’s home and obtained a handgun. Officers arriving at the apartment where he was suggested setting up a perimeter and asking the state police to send crisis negotiators. Others suggested asking the girlfriend to help communicate with the man. An officer who had obtained a warrant for the man’s arrest rebuffed those suggestions, calling the other officers “a bunch of f[—]ing p[—]sies,” declaring his intention to immediately go to the apartment, because “[t]his is how we do things in Nazareth.” He did as he said, knocked on the door of the apartment, and identified himself as a police officer. The man then promptly went into one of the bedrooms of the apartment and turned the stolen gun on himself. A federal appeals court overturned dismissal of the lawsuit. The plaintiff asserted a plausible claim that the police department was “deliberately indifferent” in failing to enact policies accommodating mental disabilities. The complaint asserted that the department’s officers and its chief routinely encountered “mentally challenged individuals,” including two named persons and that officers often responded with verbal abuse and harassment, performing arrests without accommodating the persons’ disabilities. Because of a number of such events, a named officer, relying on his personal mental health training, police department procedures, and consultation with mental health professionals, drafted a proposed policy to guide interactions with disabled individuals. In drafting that policy, the officer allegedly identified the grave risks to mentally challenged persons as a result of the department continuing to operate without proper policies and procedures for the accommodation of mentally disabled persons, but the department failed to adopt that or any other accommodation policy. Haberle v. Borough of Nazareth, #18-3429, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 26247 (3rd Cir.).
A man who sometimes lived with his long-time girlfriend and their children suffered a serious mental health episode, told her that he was suicidal, took a handgun while breaking into a friend’s home, and went to his cousin’s apartment. The girlfriend contacted police, and an officer obtained a warrant for the man’s arrest, going to the cousin’s apartment with other officers. The other officers suggested getting state police crisis negotiators or asking the girlfriend to communicate with the suspect. The first officer allegedly told the other officers that they were “a bunch of f[---]ing pussies.” He knocked and identified himself as an officer. The suspect immediately shot himself and died. The girlfriend sued, claiming that the officer unconstitutionally seized the decedent and that his suicide was the foreseeable result of a danger that the officer created, and a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12101-213 by failing to modify the municipality’s policies and procedures to ensure that disabled individuals would have their needs met during police interactions. A federal appeals court upheld the dismissal of Fourth Amendment claims. All the officer did was merely knock on the door and announce his presence, which was not enough to violate the Fourth Amendment. Even if there had been a seizure, it would have been pursuant to a valid warrant and not unlawful. The officer’s actions did not “shock the conscience” or constitute a state created danger. The appeals court remanded to allow the plaintiff to amend her ADA claim to allege facts showing that the municipality was deliberately indifferent to the rights of disabled persons who were arrested, Haberle v. Troxell, #16-2074, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 6926 (3d Cir.).
Police responding to a report of
suicidal man armed with a knife came into a residence. The man did not drop the
knife in response to commands and stepped forward, but was holding the small
kitchen knife loosely near his side. One officer shot him and a second officer
fired a Taser in the dart mode at him. The lawsuit alleged that the use of
deadly force was excessive and in violation of clearly established law on two
theories--the first that the officer shot him without probable cause to believe
that he posed a threat of serious physical harm to the officers or any other
person, and the second that the officers recklessly created the situation that led
to the use of deadly force. The federal appeals court, upholding a denial of
summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity to the officer, found that
the evidence would support a finding of a violation of clearly established
rights under the first theory, and therefore declined to discuss the second
theory. When the man was shot, according to his version of events, he was not
charging the officers, had made no aggressive moves, was not within walking
distance of the officers, ad the plaintiff had not been given sufficient time
to comply with an order to drop the knife. The opinion des not discuss whether
the use of the Taser was reasonable under these circumstances. Tenorio v.
Pitzer, #14-2114, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 17540 (10th Cir.).
Allegations that two officers shot and severely
injured a 17-year-old when he was holding a gun to his own head, and not
pointing it at the officers as they claimed, if true, would constitute
excessive force. Based on this dispute of material fact, a federal appeals court
dismissed the appeal of the denial of qualified immunity on the excessive force
claim for lack of jurisdiction. The appeals court also upheld the trial court's
refusal to dismiss a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim that after the
incident an officer intentionally fabricated evidence to cover up his
colleagues' actions and get the teenager falsely charged with aggravated
assault on the officers. Cole v. Hunter, #14-10228, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 17011
(5th Cir.).
A married couple argued on their wedding
anniversary. The husband then went to the garage, drank half of a bottle of
vodka, and put a shotgun barrel in his mouth, although he was unable to pull
the trigger. The wife called 911 and the deputy who responded shot the man four
times. The suicidal man was injured but survived. The deputy was not entitled
to qualified immunity, as he kicked in the door within three minutes of
arriving, and made no attempt to communicate with the man before entering, so
he lacked a reasonable belief that the man posed a threat. Weinmann v. McClone,
#14-1794, 787 F.3d 444 (7th Cir. 2015).
A girl's high school boyfriend told an employee
at school that she had tried to kill herself. The employee called the police
and an officer was sent to the home where the girl was staying, detaining her
until a sheriff's deputy arrived and took her, over her objections, to a
hospital where she was subjected to a mental health examination. The deputy
allegedly falsely said that he had a copy of a prior physician's medical examination,
which had not actually taken place, and wrote that the boyfriend had personally
told him about the alleged suicide attempt, a statement the boyfriend denied
making. Both the officer and the deputy allegedly ignored statements by the
girl's father contradicting the suicide report, as well as the girl's calm
demeanor. A federal appeals court upheld a ruling that the officer had probable
cause for his actions, but reversed a grant of qualified immunity for the
deputy, holding that if the facts were as claimed, he would have overstepped
the boundaries of the Fourth Amendment y taking the girl to the hospital and
then making false statements that caused her more prolonged detention. Bruce v.
Guernsey, #14-1352, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 1184 (7th Cir.).
Riding home from a bar with his aunt and her boyfriend,
a man talked about killing himself. When the car got to his apartment, he
jumped out, ran inside, and locked the door. His aunt called 911 to report a
possible suicide. Multiple officers arrived, heard the apartment door crash
open and observed the suicidal man holding a shotgun in one and with his aunt
holding his other arm. The ordered him to drop the gun, and the aunt fell,
freeing his other arm. The officers stated that the man chambered a round and
aimed the gun at them before they fired, hitting him in the eye, forearm,
hands, groin, hip, and shin. A live round was found in the shotgun's chamber
and the man was convicted of terrorizing. The aunt claimed that her nephew had
been putting the shotgun down when the officers opened fire on him. Reversing a
trial court denial of qualified immunity to the officers on an excessive force
claim, a federal appeals court reasoned that, while it was possible that the
officers were mistaken about the man aiming the gun at them, their mistake was
objectively reasonable under the circumstances. Partlow v. Stadler, #14-1281,
2014 U.S. App. Lexis 24131 (8th Cir.).
A deputy sheriff shot and killed a man in his
home, entering without a warrant while responding to a 911 call that the man
was sitting in his truck threatening to commit suicide. He had been holding a
loaded gun to his head. It was not a Fourth Amendment violation to enter the
home, as the deputy had an objectively reasonable belief that the decedent would
imminently injure himself. The deputy was entitled to qualified immunity on
excessive force claims, since the decedent was arrmed and moving toward him.
The deputy fired believing it necessary to protect himself and others. Claims
against the sheriff were also rejected, as was a claim to collect accidental
death benefits under a life insirance policy, as there was ample evidence that
the death was not accidental. Rice v. Reliastar Life Ins. Co, #13-30639, 770
F.3d 1122 (5th Cir. 2014).
The city of Albuquerque, New Mexico has been ordered to
pay over $6 million for the death of a schizophrenic man shot and punched by
officers in his backyard. The trial judge ruled that the officers were not
acting in self-defense when they shot the man in the back at close range while
serving an arrest warrant arising out of a carjacking case. Police said that
the man tried to punch one of the officers and grabbed his gun during an
altercation in the back yard. The trial judge stated that the officers failed
to present their arrest warrant during the confrontation and also failed to
contact a Crisis Intervention Team officer or the man's family before
confronting him. The court found that the two police detectives engaged in an
"unnecessary escalation of events," and that their own
"aggressive acts" at the home created the "unnecessarily
dangerous situation" in which the man was shot to death. Torres v.
Albuquerque Police Dept., #D-202-CV-2011-06551, Second Judicial District,
County of Bernalillo, New Mexico (June 10, 2014).
A woman suffering from a mental illness and
resisting officers' attempts to take her to a mental health facility claimed
that the officers violated her rights by entering her residence without a
warrant and shooting her five or six times when she threatened them with a
knife. The officers were justified in the initial entry into the home under the
emergency aid exception to the warrant requirement because they had an
objectively reasonable belief that she was in need of assistance. There were,
however, triable issues of fact as to whether the officers violated the Fourth
Amendment in forcing a second entry and thereby allegedly provoking a near
fatal confrontation, leading to an unnecessary use of deadly force that could
have been avoided. The appeals court also held that federal disability
discrimination statutes apply to arrests, and that there was a triable issue as
to whether the officers failed to reasonably accommodate her disability when
they forced their way into her room, arguably failing to take her mental
illness into account or to utilize generally accepted law enforcement practices
for peacefully resolving such a confrontation with a mentally ill person.
Sheehan v. City and County of San Francisco, #11-16401, 2014 U.S. App.
Lexis 3321 (9th Cir.).
Sheriff's deputies were not entitled to qualified
immunity for fatally shooting a 64-year-old homeowner on the patio of his
residence while responding to a domestic disturbance call. While he was armed
with a gun at the time, the plaintiff, claimed that the decedent had not
objectively provoked the officers, was walking with the use of his walker at
the time, and had his gun trained on the ground. If a jury believed the
plaintiff's version of the incident, it could find that the use of deadly force
was unreasonable and that the decedent had not posed an immediate threat to the
officer's safety. George v. Morris, #11-55956, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 15579 (9th
Cir.).
Officers arrived at a man's home after his mother
called 911 to report that he was having a psychotic episode and had attacked a
family member. The officers were told that he might have a knife or a
screwdriver. He was uncooperative with orders to lie down. A struggle ensued,
during which officers claimed that he reached under a pillow and pulled out a
knife that he swung at an officer. An officer fired six shots from his gun,
hitting him several times. In a lawsuit, the man denied attacking officers with
a knife. A federal appeals court found that the officers were entitled to qualified
immunity on disability discrimination claims as there was no clearly
established law that the officers had a duty to accommodate the arrestee's
disability of schizophrenia while trying to secure him and take him into
custody. The officer who fired the shots, however, was not entitled to
qualified immunity, as there was a disputed issue of fact as to whether the
arrestee at that time posed an objectively reasonable threat of violence
towards the officers. The court rejected a failure to train claim against the
city. Roberts v. City of Omaha, #12-3426, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 15624 (8th
Cir.).
Two officers were entitled to qualified immunity
on an excessive force claim and public officer immunity on a North Carolina
state law claim. One officer acted in an objectively reasonable manner in
firing a Taser in the dart mode, after a warning, and activating it three
times, and then pepper-spraying an arrestee who posed an immediate safety
threat and resisted arrest. His crime of property destruction of an address
sign was more than a minor crime. Before the force was used, the plaintiff had
approached the officer three times, ignoring orders to get back, while saying
"Sir, I have lost my mind." A second officer's action in activating
his Taser three times in dart mode while the arrestee lay prone and unarmed on
the ground while an officer sitting on his back in control was not clearly
established as unlawful, as the plaintiff was not then "effectively
secured." The Taser was also used several times in the stun mode before
the arrestee was fully handcuffed. Two other officer were properly denied
immunity on both federal and state claims when they allegedly punched and
struck the arrestee because he did not pose an immediate safety threat and was
not resisting, and they inflicted severe injury. All officers who were
bystanders to the incident were granted qualified immunity as they did not have
a reasonable time in which to intervene to prevent harm. Thomas v. Holly,
#12-2076, 2013 WL 3722350, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 14437 (4th Cir.).
A combat veteran who suffered from PTSD lost
touch with reality. He believed that armed men were coming to his street and
threatening his family. In response, while carrying a rifle, he broke windows
on neighbors' houses and went around in a threatening manner. He drove his van
into one of the police cars that arrived in response. A struggle ensued after
he exited his vehicle, during which the man was Tasered in the dart mode and
stun mode multiple times and bitten twice by a police dog. The trial court
found that the plaintiff had failed to present any evidence that would permit a
reasonable jury to conclude that excessive force was used against him or was
used against him after he was fully subdued. It was clear that he was resisting
arrest, and his own version of events was of little value as he
"admittedly has little recollection of the events." Ziolkowski v.
City of Taylor, #12-10395, 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 107355 (E.D. Mich.).
A federal appeals court upheld a jury verdict in
favor of a city and its officers in a lawsuit over the shooting and killing of
a suicidal cocaine intoxicated man armed with a powerful gun with a long range.
Negotiations by an emergency response team sent to his apartment failed to
persuade him to drop his weapon or come out, and the use of tear gas had been
justified to try and subdue him because it was believed that he posed an
imminent threat to others in the area. Given that the room was dark and filled
with tear gas, and that the officers' accounts differed as to how far his arm
was extended when an officer shot and killed him, the fact that he had not
previously verbally threatened others during the standoff did not establish
that he had not pointed his gun at officers as they entered. Estate of Escobedo
v. Martin, #11-2426, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 25443 (7th Cir.).
Police received a 911 call reporting that a
15-year-old girl had made statements indicating that she planned to kill
herself by taking ibuprofen pills. Three officers and emergency medical
personnel went to the girl's home where the girl admitted to the statements but
said she had changed her mind. An officer told her she had to go to the
hospital, and while the girl's parents first disagreed, they relented after the
officer said they could be charged with assisted manslaughter if their daughter
then killed herself. The girl's mother first refused to accompany her daughter
to the hospital, but then did so, later suing for false arrest based on a claim
that the officer had insisted that she accompany her daughter. In a false
arrest lawsuit brought by the girl's mother, the officer was entitled to
qualified immunity as the mother was not seized in violation of the Fourth
Amendment. There was no indication that the officer displayed a weapon,
physically touched the mother, or intimidated her with a threatening presence
to compel her to go. James v. City of Wilkes Barre, #11-3345, 2012 U.S. App.
Lexis 24592 (3rd Cir.).
A bipolar woman who had ceased taking her
medication was arrested for disruptive actions at an airport. She allegedly
received no medical attention while detained, and was released in a high-crime
area of town where she was first raped and then either pushed or fell out of a
high-rise building, causing her to suffer permanent brain damage. While there
is no general right to have police protection against the criminal acts of
third parties, police can be liable for damage if they create or enhance the
danger of such crimes. While the woman had no due process right to be kept in
custody for her protection, it was "clearly established that the police
may not create a danger, without justification, by arresting someone in a safe
place and releasing her in a hazardous one while unable to protect
herself." A number of individual defendants were not entitled to qualified
immunity for their role in the woman's release in a dangerous area or failure
to provide her with medical care while in custody. The court stated that “they
might as well have released her into the lion's den at the Brookfield Zoo,”
since “she is white and well off while the local population is predominantly
black and not affluent, causing her to stand out as a person unfamiliar with
the environment and thus a potential target for crime.” Paine v. Cason,
#10–1487, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 8450 (7th Cir.).
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).