AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Civil Liability of
Law Enforcement Agencies & Personnel
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
Emotional Distress
A Detroit woman heard a banging at the front door of her home. The next thing she knew, there were a group of people wearing all black standing in her living room with masks concealing their faces and only their eyes visible. They were police officers executing a search warrant. One officer threw her to the ground, put his knee in her back, and handcuffed her. She complained that the handcuffs were tight, but the officer allegedly told her “shut up, b----, you shouldn’t be so fat.” When she repeated her complaint, he allegedly replied “if you don’t shut your f---ing mouth I can blow your head off and nothing can be done.” Days later, the woman was diagnosed at a hospital with musculoskeletal strain in her chest and wrist bruising. She sued for excessive force and deliberate indifference. A federal appeals court upheld the denial of motions for qualified immunity, governmental immunity, and summary judgment in favor of the police department and officers on an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. The plaintiff had created a genuine issue of material fact of whether the officers violated her clearly established right to be free from excessively tight handcuffing that causes physical injury. The officers were also not entitled to immunity on the state law battery claim stemming from the handcuffing because there was evidence that the officer who handcuffed her tightened them in bad faith after she complained. McGrew v. Sergeant Duncan, #18-2022, 937 F.3d 664 (6th Cir. 2019).
Two homosexual men arrested
at home in the early morning on charges of assaulting an officer claimed that
the arresting officers refused to allow them to get additional clothing,
forcing them to remain in their boxer shorts and only issuing them jumpsuits
after they got to the police station. The plaintiffs had repeatedly changed
their story, now contending that officers repeatedly struck them and violated
their equal protection rights as homosexuals by forcing them to remain in their
shorts. They also asserted claims for intentional infliction of emotional
distress. The officers moved for summary judgment and the plaintiffs then filed
affidavits in response, based on "personal knowledge and belief," for
the first time revealing which officers they claimed committed each act. The
appeals court upheld the trial's court's rulings striking the affidavits since
it was not possible to tell which statements in the affidavits were based on
personal knowledge, as required, and which were only based on mere belief.
Without the affidavits, the defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of
law, even construing any remaining evidence in the light most favorable to the
plaintiffs. The court also stated that the complaint about being kept in boxer
shorts, even if motivated in part by reaction to the plaintiffs' homosexuality,
was not unconstitutional. Ondo v. City of Cleveland, #14-3527, 2015 U.S. App.
Lexis 13474, 2015 Fed. App. 175P (6th Cir.).
A woman who was a
victim of domestic violence claimed that an officer made a number of statements
to her concerning her husband, such as "everything is ok, everything is in
process," and "he's going to be in prison for a while." The
husband two days later later stabbed her with a knife. She claimed that she
justifiably relied on the officer's reassurances. The highest court in New York
overturned summary judgment for the defendant police department, finding that
the evidence presented was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to
whether there was a special relationship that existed between her and the
police. The court rejected negligent infliction of emotional distress claims on
behalf of the woman's child, who was in a broom closet at the time of the
attack, and therefore was not in the zone of danger. Coleson v. City of New
York, #191, 2014 N.Y. Lexis 3344, 2014 NY Slip Op 08213.
A man at a legal casino presented what appeared
to be an altered driver's license while trying to collect a slot machine
jackpot. He was briefly handcuffed, detained, and turned over to police. Each
of these actions by an Illinois Gaming Board agent were carried out in the
exercise of his statutory duties arising from his state employment, so he was
entitled to sovereign immunity on false imprisonment and intentional infliction
of emotional distress state law claims. Even if he acted without probable
cause, he did not act beyond the scope of his authority. The intermediate
Illinois appeals court upheld a jury verdict in favor of the casino and casino
security supervisor on a false imprisonment claim. Grainger v. Harrah's
Casino, #3-13-002, 2014 IL App (3d) 130029, 2014 Ill. App. Lexis 670.
A former inmate, released from custody after he
was exonerated of a murder that he had previously been convicted of, filed a
lawsuit asserting claims for false arrest, false imprisonment, and intentional
infliction of emotion distress. He claimed that his conviction was caused by a
number of acts of police misconduct, including the threatening of witnesses and
the fabricating of evidence. All claims were dismissed as time-barred, under
the theory that they accrued at the time of his arrest, rather than when he was
exonerated. Reversing this result as to the emotional distress claim, a federal
appeals court found that the emotional distress claim was not complete at the
time of his arrest, but rather at the time of his conviction. The conviction
had led to the emotional strain and mental anguish the plaintiff suffered, and
this claim was therefore not time barred under the statute of limitations.
Parish v. City of Elkhart, #09-2056, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 15747 (7th Cir.).
A man found his fiancée murdered by an
unknown intruder in the apartment they shared. He filed a lawsuit against the
county, which operates the local 911 emergency call system, claiming that a 911
call from the murdered woman was improperly handled, and seeking damages for
negligent infliction of emotional distress he allegedly suffered as a bystander.
A Wisconsin intermediate appeals court ruled that the plaintiff, as the murder
victim's fiancé, was not in a category of persons "who may state a
bystander claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress." State
law, the court reasoned, limits such claims to the relationships between the
plaintiff and the victim as spouses, parent-child, grandparent-grandchild, or
siblings. Estate of Zimmerman v. Dane County, #2009AP1710, 2010 Wisc. App.
Lexis 565.(Unpub. Dist. 4).
After a motorist was decapitated in a car crash,
two highway patrolmen allegedly e-mailed nine "gruesome" death
pictures of the body to family members and friends on Halloween for their
"shock value." The pictures later were posted on the Internet. The
decedent's family sued for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of
emotional distress. A California appeals court found that the trial court
improperly rejected the privacy claim, since the dissemination of the photos in
this manner served no legitimate law enforcement purpose or public interest,
appearing to be for the purpose of "pure morbidity and
sensationalism." The plaintiffs also had a valid cause of action for
negligent infliction of emotional distress, the court ruled, since it was
foreseeable that the display of the pictures would cause them "devastating
trauma." Catsouras v. Calif. Highway Patrol, #G039916, 2010 Cal. App.
Lexis 113 (4th Dist.).
Almost thirty years after four men were convicted
of involvement in an organized crime "gangland slaying," the F.B.I.
disclosed, for the first time, that it had all along possessed reliable
intelligence undercutting the testimony of a cooperating witness whose version
of the murder was the basis of the convictions, but had suppressed this
information. All four convictions were vacated, but by then, two of the men had
died in prison, the third had been paroled, and only the fourth was still
incarcerated. The two surviving men, along with the estates of the two
decedents, sued the U.S. government under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA),
28 U.S.C. Secs. 1346(b), 2671-2680. After a bench trial, the court found the
government liable, awarding over $100 million in damages. A federal appeals
court, while commenting that the damage awards were "considerably higher
than any one of us, if sitting on the trial court bench, would have
ordered," nevertheless upheld the awards, finding that they were not
"so grossly disproportionate to the harm sustained as to either shock our
collective conscience or raise the specter of a miscarriage of justice."
There was no liability for malicious prosecution, the court held, as the U.S.
government had not initiated the murder prosecution of the four men by the
state of Massachusetts, but liability was found on the basis of a state law
claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, applicable to the U.S.
government through the FTCA. Limone v. U.S., #08-1327, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis
19239 (1st Cir.).
Police officers' alleged actions in conducting a
"campaign of harassment" by running a drug and prostitution ring out
of the plaintiff's bottle club, and refusing to investigate illegal activities
on the premises, as well as attempting to make the plaintiff and his employees
stay silent about what was occurring, if true, were sufficiently extreme and outrageous
to support claims, under Florida state law, for intentional infliction of
emotional distress. Additionally, the club owner could have believed that he
would be arrested if he did not cooperate with the officers' demands. Gallogly
v. Rodriguez, No. 2D06-5118, 2007 Fla. App. Lexis 19701 (Fla. App. 2nd Dist.).
A federal trial judge has awarded $101.7 million
against the U.S. government on claims that the FBI was "responsible
for the framing of four innocent men" for murder, causing them to serve
decades for a crime they did not commit. Four men falsely convicted of a 1965
gangland murder, and their estates and families asserted claims against the
U.S. government under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1346
and 2671-2680 for malicious prosecution, civil conspiracy, intentional
infliction of emotional distress, and related claims. The trial court rejected
the argument that the U.S. government was entitled to immunity based on the
discretionary function exception to liability in 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2680(a). The
FBI's alleged conduct in knowingly allowing an informant to provide perjurious
testimony in the murder trial, failing to reveal exculpatory evidence, and
failing to disclose information about the actual murderers for a period of thirty
years was unconstitutional and violated its own rules, the judge ruled. The
court found that the FBI's conduct was the cause of the convictions, and that
the conduct met the standard for intentional infliction of emotional distress,
as the alleged actions violated all standards of decency and were intentional.
The family members of the convicted persons were entitled to damages, under
Massachusetts law for bystanders' intentional infliction of emotional distress.
$1 million for each year of imprisonment was awarded to the men falsely
convicted, or their estates. The minor children of the convicted men, and three
of the wives of the convicted men were also awarded damages, as were an adult
child of one of the men, and a wife who divorced one of the men. Two of the
four men are now deceased, while two of them are still alive. Limone v. U.S.,
No. 02cv10890-NG, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 54224 (D. Mass.). [Editor's
Note: The total damages awarded were $101.7 million].
City was not entitled to summary judgment on a
mother's claim that statements made by a police officer to her son's fellow
high school students caused him emotional distress severe enough to trigger his
suicide. Officer allegedly either falsely or with reckless disregard of the
truth told the students that her son was one of the persons making two
anonymous 911 calls which was the basis for a police raid on a teenage drinking
party at a home and charges against those there for being minors in possession
of alcohol. Court finds that there were disputed issues of fact both on what
specifically the officer said, and whether the officer's statements were
privileged. Clifford v. City of Clatskanie, No. 12002, A124955, 131 P.3d 783
(Or. App. 2006). [N/R]
Officers' actions in arresting a man for allegedly
interfering with their interview of his companion about a report of a man
driving a dirt bike and carrying a gun in the vicinity was not "extreme
and outrageous" as required for a claim for intentional infliction of
emotional distress under New York state law. Lee v. McCue, No. 04CIV.6077, 410
F. Supp. 2d 221 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). [N/R]
Family members of murder victim could not recover
damages for emotional distress allegedly suffered due to police investigators
failure to pursue or to inform the department of inculpatory evidence found
during the investigation. Even if these claims were true, they were
insufficient to "shock the conscience" and violate the family
member's due process rights. Cusick v. City of New Haven, No. 03-7890, 145 Fed.
Appx. 701 (2nd Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Police release of details about man's criminal
record to the press after he was fatally shot by a police officer could not be
the basis for a federal civil rights claim for harm to his reputation, nor did
false statements allegedly made about the circumstances of the shooting support
a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress brought by the
decedent's family, although a claim for negligent infliction of emotional
distress brought by members of the decedent's family who witnessed the shooting
was viable. The decedent did not suffer specific harm to his employment,
education, professional licensing or insurance opportunities based on the
statements made about him, and under New York law had no protectable liberty interest
in his reputation which survived his death. Sylvester v. City of New York, No.
03 Civ. 8760, 385 F. Supp. 2d 431 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). [N/R]
Officers' alleged actions of repeatedly striking
suspect on his ribs, back and head after he fully submitted to arrest was
unreasonable so that they were not entitled to qualified immunity. Alleged
unprovoked beating would be sufficiently outrageous under Tennessee law to
support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Alexander v.
Newman, #02-2983-DV, 345 F. Supp. 2d 876 (W.D. Tenn. 2004). [N/R]
Police officer's failure to exhaust available
administrative remedies barred his bringing a lawsuit under the Federal Tort
Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2675(a) against federal officers seeking emotional
distress damages for their alleged failure to protect him from reprisals by
targets of an investigation of police corruption. Russo v. Glasser, 279 F.
Supp. 2d 126 (D. Conn. 2003). [N/R]
Police detective was not liable for either
defamation or intentional infliction of emotional distress under District of
Columbia law for issuance of a press release identifying the plaintiff as
having been involved in a murder, along with the arrestee's picture. The
issuance of such press releases was within the scope of the duties of police
investigators and it did not cause economic or physical harm to the plaintiff.
Further, the release of the information involved the public's right to
information and public safety. Liser v. Smith, 254 F. Supp. 2d 89 (D.D.C. 2003).
[N/R]
Family could not recover damages for loss of
consortium or intentional infliction of emotional distress based on county dog
warden's shooting of their pet dog. Loss of "love and affection" from
death of dog was not the kind of damages family could obtain under Kentucky
state law, the shooting did not take place in front of the family, and there
was no evidence that defendant intended, by his actions, to inflict emotional
harm. Court also refuses to find a practice of destroying impounded dogs by
shooting them inhumane, leaving such issues to be decided by the legislature.
Ammon v. Welty, No. 1999-CA-001759-MR, 113 S.W.3d 185 (Ky. App. 2003). [N/R]
Arrestee's state law false arrest and intentional
infliction of emotional distress claims accrued on the date of his arrest and
his federal civil rights claim for arrest without probable cause accrued, at
the latest, on the date he was sentenced, rather than on the date that his
conviction was subsequently invalidated nine years later. Arrestee's claims
were all time-barred under two year Illinois statute of limitations. U.S.
Supreme Court decision in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), holding that a
federal civil rights claim for damages attributable to an unconstitutional
conviction or sentence does not accrue until the conviction or sentence has
been invalidated did not apply to claims for damages resulting from false
arrest not made pursuant to a warrant, the court stated, citing Snodderly v.
R.U.F.F. Drug Enforcement Task Force, 239 F.3d 892 (7th Cir. 2001). Day v.
Conwell, 244 F. Supp. 2d 961 (N.D. Ill. 2003). [N/R]
Nebraska Supreme Court rejects argument by mother
of cross-dressing woman that $98,223 in damages for failure of county sheriff
to protect her daughter against murder by two men she accused of rape was
inadequate. Court notes that mother's relationship with her daughter was
"strained." Brandon v. County of Richardson, #S-01-1158, 653 N.W.2d
829 (Neb. 2002). [2003 LR Apr]
Under District of Columbia law, a claim for intentional
infliction of emotional distress could be based on officers' alleged unlawful
entry into and search of arrestee's home without justification, killing of his
pet dog inside the residence, and failure to secure the premises after his
arrest, resulting in the loss of property alleged to have a value in excess of
$6,000. Amons v. District of Columbia, 231 F. Supp. 2d 109 (D.D.C. 2002). [N/R]
Evidence supported jury's determination that
state troopers' actions in arresting casino patron were extreme and outrageous
in a manner allowing an award of damages for intentional infliction of
emotional distress. Trooper allegedly allowed security officer to pepper spray
arrestee while handcuffed and transported arrestee outside on cold winter night
dressed only in socks and underwear. Sabir v. Jowett, 214 F. Supp. 2d 226 (D.
Conn. 2002). [2003 LR Feb.]
A claim for intentional infliction of emotional
distress under Massachusetts law was not sufficiently asserted by the bare
allegation that the family of a woman who an individual refused to date, the
city, and the police department conspired to deprive the plaintiff of certain
rights. Plaintiff also made "no rational connection" between the
defendants and the alleged deprivation of his rights to obtain a firearms
license or a business license for purposes of asserting a federal civil rights
claim. Baxter v. Conte, 190 F. Supp. 2d 123 (D. Mass. 2001). [N/R]
346:154 California jury awards $75,000 for
emotional distress to family of deceased woman whose body was autopsied,
without authorization, during "Scared Stiff" program for youthful
drunk drivers. Garza v. County of Fresno, No. 644182-8, (Fresno Co., Calif.,
Super. Ct.)., reported in The National Law Journal, p. B3 (August 13, 2001).
342:90 County sheriff had a duty to protect
cross- dressing rape victim against threats by her assailants that they would
kill her if she reported the crime; sheriff's
"demeaning" and "accusatory"
statements to victim during interview were "outrageous" as a matter
of law; Nebraska Supreme Court rules that mother of murdered rape victim must
be awarded full $80,000 for decedent's pain and suffering, as well as some
amount for loss of companionship and orders further proceedings on emotional
distress claim based on sheriff's conduct. Brandon v. County of Richardson,
#S-00-022, 624 N.W.2d 604 (Neb. 2001).
329:74 Evidence that occupants of a motor vehicle
worked in the "adult entertainment industry" and that one of them was
a prostitute who had worked in a legal brothel was irrelevant to issues in
federal civil rights lawsuit over officer's detention of them following a
vehicle stop and search of their possessions; introduction of evidence would
also be prejudicial; state law emotional distress claim did not alter result.
Skultin v. Bushnell, 82 F.Supp. 2d 1258 (D. Utah 2000).
[N/R] Texas Tort Claims Act gave city immunity
from claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and false
imprisonment. Nebout v. City of Hitchcock, 71 F.Supp. 2d 702 (S.D. Tex. 1999).
325:4 UPDATE: New York judge sets aside $15
million jury award against city in emotional distress lawsuit brought by mother
who claimed post-traumatic stress from finding photo of her missing son in book
of unidentified corpses in city morgue after officers allegedly delayed in
allowing her to file a missing person's report after he was gone for two days.
Green v. City of New York, No. 3714/92 (Sup. Ct., Kings Co., N.Y.), reported in
The National Law Journal, p. B17 (August 2, 1999).
322:152 Trial court rules that former police
officer who was awarded $3 million in jury trial over First Amendment, false
arrest, and emotional distress claims must accept a reduction in the award to
$150,000 or else face a new trial on damages; court overturns jury's false
arrest award. Mihalick v. Town of Simsbury, 37 F.Supp. 2d 125 (D. Conn. 1999).
322:148 Arrestee awarded $30,000 in damages
against officer for false arrest and intentional infliction of emotional
distress was also entitled to $193,361.25 in attorneys' fees and $3,987.20 in
costs, despite contingent fee agreement limiting attorneys' fees to 40% of
award; $3,000 in sanctions imposed against officer for failure to reveal
additional citizen complaints against him in discovery process; plaintiff did
not improperly strike males from the jury, since "gender-neutral"
reasons were given. Gaytan v. Kapus, 181 F.R.D. 573 (N.D. Ill. 1998).
321:134 Claim for intentional infliction of
emotional distress was stated against police chief for his alleged hiring of
"violent and mentally unstable people" as officers; persons allegedly
beaten by officers could pursue claim against police chief for emotional
distress despite dismissal of federal civil rights claim against him. Martinez
v. Wolferseder, 997 F.Supp. 192 (D. Mass. 1998).
308:121 Mother of man awarded $15 million against
city for emotional distress allegedly caused by officers' refusal to file a
missing person's report for her adult son after he was gone for two days; she
later learned of his death by coming across his picture in a book of
unidentified corpses in city morgue. Green v. City of New York, No. 3714/92
(April 29, 1998, Sup. Ct., Kings Co., N.Y.), reported in The Natl. Law Jour.,
p. A11 (June 22, 1998).
283:101 Mother's claim against state police for
allegedly mishandling her daughter's remains and failing to turn remains over
to her for burial were properly dismissed; intentional infliction of emotional
distress claim was barred by Pennsylvania sovereign immunity and negligent infliction
of emotional distress claim was not made in absence of assertion that mother
witnessed a "traumatic event involving her daughter's remains" Ray v.
Pennsylvania State Police, 654 A.2d 140 (Pa/Cmwlth. 1995). [Cross- reference:
Defenses: Sovereign Immunity]
265:7 Children whose father was shot and killed
by police officer but did not witness shooting were unforeseeable as injured
parties and could not sue officer for damages Lucero v. Salazar, 877 P.2d 1106
(NMApp. 1994).
267:40 California county was statutorily immune
from liability for emotional distress caused to rape crime victim by statements
allegedly made by investigating officers to her friends and neighbors
suggesting that she knew more about the rape and murder of her friend, a victim
of the same offender, than she was telling Amylou R v. County of Riverside, 34
Cal.Rptr.2d 319 (Cal App. 1994).
Allegations that officers sexually abused deaf
woman and exposed other occupants of stopped car to ant bites and excessive
heat stated claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress under
Florida state law McCray v. Holt, 777 F.Supp. 945 (S.D.Fla 1991).
Officers statements to children that they might
never see their mother's boyfriend again, and refusal to allow children to hug
and kiss boyfriend goodbye as they arrested him, did not violate due process;
children could not sue for emotional injuries Pittsley v. Warish, 927 F.2d 3
(1st Cir. 1991).
Woman allegedly called "a prostitute, a
hooker" by officer questioning her in a bar awarded $15,000 for negligent
infliction of emotional distress Garnett v. City of Bellevue, 796 P.2d 782
(Wash App. 1990).
Child could not bring civil rights lawsuit over
his emotional distress at witnessing officer's alleged beating of his father
during arrest Archuleta v. McShan, 897 F.2d 495 (10th Cir. 1990).
Deputy constable who altered warrant, changing
name, driver's license, address, description and birth date, liable for $55,000
punitive damages to arrestee Brown v. Byer, 870 F.2d 975 (5th Cir. 1989).
Wife has no federal claim for witnessing
husband's alleged beating by police Buikema v. Hayes, 562 F.Supp. 910 (N.D.Ill.
1983).