AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Civil Liability of
Law Enforcement Agencies & Personnel
Back to list of subjects Back to Legal Publications Menu
Domestic Violence & Child Abuse
Monthly Law Journal Article: Civil Liability and Child Abuse Investigations -- Part 2, 2017 (5) AELE Mo. L. J. 101.
Monthly Law Journal Article: Civil Liability and Child Abuse Investigations -- Part 3, 2017 (6) AELE Mo. L. J. 101.
Monthly Law Journal Article: Ninth Circuit Applies “State-Created Danger” Doctrine To Police Liability for Domestic Violence, 2020 (2) AELE Mo. L.J. 101.
A father and his children sued a county, a child welfare agency, and others for alleged civil rights violations arising from a child welfare investigation. Claims were asserted for violations of the plaintiffs’ First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. A federal appeals court found that the complaint failed to plausibly allege Fourth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, and municipal liability claims. However, the father pleaded a plausible First Amendment claim where he asserted that he engaged in protected activity, that the alleged retaliation would objectively have had a chilling effect, and that retaliation was the but-for motive for the social worker’s actions. Additionally, the social worker was not entitled to qualified immunity because a reasonable official would have known that taking the serious step of threatening to terminate a parent’s custody of his children, when the official would not have taken this step absent her retaliatory intent based on his criticism of her actions, violated the First Amendment. The defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity on the First Amendment claim. A Fourth Amendment claim failed, however, because the father failed to show interviews of the children at their school were seizures. Capp v. County of San Diego, #18-55119, 940 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 2019).
A man stabbed and killed his pregnant wife and their unborn child, right outside a courthouse where she had just gotten a protective order against him. The plaintiffs, including the decedent’s estate and guardian of her surviving children, sued the defendant police officer, claiming that he was responsible for the deaths because he enabled the husband to postpone his self-surrender on a misdemeanor arrest warrant, providing him with an opportunity to commit the assault. A federal appeals court previously upheld the denial of qualified immunity to the defendant in Robinson v. Lioi, #12-1922, 536 F. App’x 340, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 15458, 2013 WL 3892803 (4th Cir. 2013), after which the plaintiffs added a second defendant officer and the trial court granted both defendants summary judgment. A federal appeals court upheld this result. The plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence for reasonable jurors to find by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendants undertook any “affirmative acts” that would support liability for a state-created danger substantive due process claim. The court noted that the threat that the husband posed to the victim existed prior to and independent of the officers’ interactions with the husband. Graves v. Lioi, #17-1848, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 21005, 2019 WL 314375 (4th Cir.).
A federal civil rights lawsuit alleged violations of the plaintiffs’ constitutional right to privacy and of Arkansas tort law in connection with a city, a county, and various city or county officials’ decisions to release information identifying the plaintiffs as victims of childhood sexual abuse. The plaintiffs are sisters and stars of a popular reality TV show “19 Kids and Counting.” They were interviewed as part of a police investigation into alleged sexual misconduct by their brother. A federal appeals court upheld the denial of qualified immunity to the defendant officials. The information released about the minors interviewed in the investigation was “highly personal” and involved the “most intimate aspects” of their lives. It was inherently private, the court stated, and entitled to constitutional protection. The lawsuit therefore stated a plausible claim for the violation of their constitutional right to confidentiality. The right of minor victims of sexual abuse not to have their identities and the details of their abuse publically revealed was clearly established at the time. The plaintiffs, additionally, sufficiently pleaded intentional misconduct in the release of the information, so the officials were not entitled to statutory or qualified immunity on the plaintiffs’ state law claims. Dillard v. Hoyt, #17-3284, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 20723, 2019 WL 3049010 (8th Cir.).
Two grandparents filed a lawsuit against state social workers for civil rights violations for failure to protect and against the state agency which employed them for negligence after two young boys were murdered by their father during a social-worker-supervised visit during dependency proceedings initiated by the agency. The father was a suspect in the disappearance of the children’s mother, his wife. Child pornography was found on 15 computers during a search of his home. A federal appeals court upheld summary judgment for the social workers, ruling that there was insufficient evidence to show that they recognized, or should have recognized, an objective substantial risk that the father would physically harm his sons. They did not act with deliberate indifference to the boys’ liberty interests and they were therefore entitled to qualified immunity. The court reversed, however, the dismissal of the negligence claims against the agency, finding that material issues of fact existed regarding whether the agency used reasonable care to avoid placing the boys in harm’s way and whether its actions proximately caused the boys to be placed in harm's way. Cox v. Washington, #15-35964, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 884 (9th Cir.).
A child and her mother claimed that a county caseworker wrongfully searched the child at a Head Start preschool in violation of the Fourth Amendment after receiving anonymous reports of signs of abuse. Without either consent or a warrant, she partially undressed the girl, visually examined her for signs of abuse, and then photographed her private areas and partially unclothed body. A federal appeals court found no error in the trial court’s dismissal of the lawsuit on the basis that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the Fourth Amendment claims. Doe v. Woodard, #18-1066, 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 112 (10th Cir.).
County social workers who suspected child abuse removed four children, all under the age of six, from a family home. They were taken to a temporary shelter and all given invasive medical examinations without their parents’ knowledge or consent, and without a court order. A federal appeals court ruled that the county violated the parents’ Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights when it performed the medical examinations without notifying the parents about the examinations and without obtaining either the parents’ consent or judicial authorization. The searches were unconstitutional under the special needs balancing test if performed without the necessary notice and consent. In this case, the county violated the children's Fourth Amendment rights by failing to obtain a warrant or to provide these constitutional safeguards before subjecting the children to invasive medical examinations. Mann v. County of San Diego, #16-56657, 907 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2018).
A man who had a fight with officers in the setting of acute methamphetamine intoxication died from a cardiac arrhythmia. The incident occurred as the officers responded to a domestic disturbance call and found the man attacking his girlfriend in a brutal manner. A federal appeals court upheld summary judgment for the defendants in an excessive force lawsuit brought by the decedent’s parents. The appeals court held that unsworn statements about the incident that paramedics had made to officers were properly excluded from evidence. Iowa’s state false statement law did not “implicitly swear” a declarant making a statement to officers. There also was no genuine dispute of material fact that the decedent posed a threat to the safety of both the officers and girlfriend and no admissible evidence rebutting the officers’ version of the incident. Tasers in the dart mode were used during the incident and a Taser video indicated that one Taser malfunctioned. Zubrod v. Hoch, #17-1202, 2018 U.S. App. Lexis 29625 (8th Cir.).
Child abuse investigators removed seven minor children from a couple’s home. The parents sued the agency and its employees. A civilian investigator for the Crimes Against Children Division appealed the denial of her motion for qualified immunity. A federal appeals court affirmed this result and ruled that the facts asserted plausibly alleged that the defendant could be liable if the children were removed from their parents’ home without reasonable suspicion of child abuse. Additionally, it was clearly established at the time the investigator acted that reasonable suspicion was required to remove the children from their home and their parents’ custody. Stanley v. Finnegan, #17-2702, 899 F.3d 623 (8th Cir. 2018).
Parents claimed that social workers violated their constitutional rights to family unity and companionship, along with their children’s’ rights, by removing their three small children from their home without a warrant or court order. The investigation into possible criminal child abuse began after the parents attempted at a store to have printed nude photos of their children. A federal appeals court overturned the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the social workers based on qualified immunity, ruling that they did not have reasonable cause to believe the children were at risk of serious bodily harm or molestation when they removed the children from their home without a judicial order. Demaree v. Pederson, #14-16207, 2018 U.S. Lexis 1625 (9th Cir.).
Parents and their two children sued a county and several of its social workers over the detention of the children for six months as a result of a child abuse investigation. The mother exhibited bizarre behavior and threatened hospital staff with violence after giving birth, asked that the child be placed “back inside” her, walked around unclothed, and asked a nurse to cut her ankles for bloodletting. The appeals court believed that exigent circumstances existed to detain the children without a warrant at the hospital, and that the father’s arrival after the children were detained did not alter matters. There was no evidence to show conduct by the social workers to establish a claim for deliberate indifference, or behavior that shocks the conscience. Further, numerous claims by the plaintiffs were barred by the parents’ pleas of no contest in dependency court. Gabrielle A. v. Co. of Orange, #GO51784, 2017 Cal. App. Unpub. Lexis 2105.
While in most cases a person cannot recover civil rights damages against a state for failure to protect them against private violence, an exception is when there is a “special relationship” creating a duty to provide protection. This can sometimes occur when a state fails to protect a foster child from a known substantial risk of harm. In this case, a foster child sued two Colorado social workers responsible for investigating reports that he was being abused, along with others involved with his adoption. He had been in Oklahoma’s custody until, with Oklahoma’s approval, a Colorado-based private adoption agency placed him for adoption with a foster father in Colorado. The foster father physically abused him before and after adopting him. The private adoption agency was responsible for monitoring his placement. Together with Colorado, it recommended approval of his adoption by the abusive foster father. The child eventually escaped his abusive foster father by running away. He then sued the private adoption agency, its employees, and the Colorado caseworkers who were assigned to investigate reports of abuse from officials at his public school. The trial court dismissed all of his claims except a section 1983 claim against the two Colorado caseworkers and two state-law claims against the agency and its employees, concluding the special-relationship doctrine allowed him to move forward with the 1983 claim. While the federal appeals court condemned the social workers’ inadequate efforts to protect the vulnerable child, it concluded, under the controlling precedents, that the caseworkers were entitled to qualified immunity. Dahn v. Amedei, #16-1059, 2017 U.S. App. Lexis 15031 (10th Cir.).
While a woman was dating a male county sheriff’s deputy, the relationship became “combative.” During one incident he threw her against a wall and choked her. In other incidents, he sent lewd and threatening text messages, statements that she had “fucked with the wrong person,” locked her out of her home, and punched a hole in her door. Responses from the sheriff’s office allegedly included statements that “we’re sick of getting these calls.” The deputy was eventually arrested, pled guilty and resigned, after which the woman sued. A federal appeals court upheld judgments for the resigned deputy, other officers, and the sheriff. The resigned deputy was not serving as a state actor in his interactions with the plaintiff. None of the defendants’ conduct was sufficiently outrageous to give rise to a viable claim as there was no evidence that they created or increased a danger to the plaintiff. Mere indifference or inaction in the face of private violence cannot support a substantive due process claim. Wilson-Trattner v. Campbell, #16-2509, 2017 U.S. App. Lexis 12356 (7th Cir.).
A child removed from her
mother’s custody along with her minor sister sued the county and some of
its employees, claiming that social workers maliciously used perjured testimony
and fabricated evidence to secure her removal, in violation of her Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendment rights to her familial relationship with her mother. A
federal appeals court upheld the denial of absolute immunity to the individual
defendants, as the complaint alleged conduct well outside of social workers’
legitimate roles as quasi-prosecutorial advocates presenting a case and making
a discretionary decision as to whether to prosecute. In this case, the
plaintiff produced more than sufficient admissible evidence to create a genuine
dispute as to whether her removal from her mother’s custody violated her
clearly established constitutional rights, and the defendants’ case for
qualified immunity from these charges was not supported by the law or the
record. The use of perjured testimony and fabricated evidence in court in order
to sever a child’s familial bond with her mother, if true, was
unconstitutional. Hardwick v. County of Orange,
#15-55563, 844 F.3d 1112 (9th Cir. 2017).
A man filed a lawsuit against several officers,
alleging that they improperly took his two minor children from his home without
a court order or reasonable cause. The officers maintained that they acted at
the direction of employees of the state Department of Human Services (DHS), who
had received reports that the man's live-in girlfriend, who was pregnant and
the mother of one of the children and a legal guardian of the other, had tested
positive for methamphetamine, and other drugs, and that the children might be
in danger. The undisputed facts showed that the officers were entitled to
qualified immunity in removing the children. They were not incompetent in
believing that they were legally authorized to act in reliance on the DHS
determination that the children were in danger. Even if the officers were
mistaken in their belief that they could remove the children at the direction
of DHS without court authorization, their actions were objectively reasonable
under the circumstances. Sjurset v. Button, #13-35851, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis
21054 (9th Cir.).
A family member told state Children's Protective
Services that a father was neglecting his son. This resulted in the agency's
social worker interviewing the child at his elementary school with no court
order or parental consent. The social worker then interviewed the father, who
maintained that both his marijuana use and prescription drug use were medically
authorized. A second interview of the child was conducted at the school with
his paternal grandmother present, but still without parental consent or a court
order. The social worker then obtained a court order placing the child in
protective custody pending a hearing, and took the child from school. A judge
returned the boy to his father, but ordered no more marijuana use and drug
testing of the father. A federal appeals court found that the social worker was
entitled to absolute and qualified immunity on claims that he interviewed the
child without parental consent or a court order, allegedly stated falsehoods in
the petition for the protective custody, and improperly removed the child from
school. Barber v. Miller, #15-1404, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 22200, 2015 Fed. App.
296P (Unpub. 6th Cir.).
A couple claimed that police officers had
violated their rights by taking their children into protective custody without
a warrant or court order. A jury awarded over $3 million in damages (including
$2 million in punitive damages) and the trial judge ordered a new trial on
compensatory and punitive damages, believing that the jury may have
impermissibly awarded damages for injuries that would have been suffered even
absent the constitutional violation. A jury then awarded a total of $210,002,
with only compensatory damages and no punitive damages awarded. A federal appeals
court found no error and upheld the reduced award, finding that the trial court
could conclude that the jury in the first trial had awarded damages for
emotional distress resulting from the separation from the children that was not
caused by the defendant officers. Additionally, the punitive damages awarded
after the first trial could have resulted from passion and prejudice rather
than an assessment of what injuries the officers could properly be held
responsible for. Watson v. City of San Jose, #13-15019, 800 F.3d 1135 (9th Cir.
2015).
Parents lost physical custody of their injured infant
son after the mother took the child to a state university hospital seeking
treatment and a medical director there suspected abuse, leading to months of
proceedings before the child was returned. A federal appeals court found that
the plaintiff's version of the evidence supported a claim that the medical
director seized the child, doing so without exigent circumstances, and that it
was clearly established that doing so violated the plaintiffs' constitutional
rights. The defendant was not entitled, under these circumstances to state
statutory immunities for those mandated to report suspected child abuse. Jones
v. Wang, #12-55995, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 16725 (9th Cir.).
A former police officer was arrested twice on
domestic violence complaints by his now estranged wife, with the second arrest
based on a warrant. He was subsequently acquitted and sued both the estranged
wife and two of the arresting officers for malicious prosecution, based on
claims that the wife's medical records contained details inconsistent with her
story and that police department policies, if followed during the
investigation, should have raised questions as to whether there was probable
cause to prosecute. The trial court declined to dismiss the malicious
prosecution claim, but a federal appeals court reversed, referring to an
"overly charitable" reading of the complaint by the trial court. The
defendant officers were entitled to qualified immunity, as the complaint's
factual allegations did not set forth conduct plausibly making out a violation
of clearly established law. Johnson v. Moseley, #14-5870, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis
9129, 2015 Fed App. 109P (6th Cir.).
A woman who had previously been assaulted by her
ex-husband served as the police department contact for her neighborhood watch
group. She mentioned the assault to the police chief, but no report was file
nor was any official action taken. The chief started spending time with her,
and ultimately entered into a sexual relationship with her. After she broke it
off, she began experiencing what she believed was harassment, including unknown
cars parked outside her house and anonymous threatening phone calls mentioning
private conversations she had had with the chief. While she reported this to
the police department, no official action was taken. Believing that the chief
had orchestrated the harassment, she sued the city and the chief both
individually and in his official capacity. A federal appeals court upheld
summary judgment for the dependents on constitutional claims. rejecting
assertions of substantive due process violations of her rights to bodily
integrity and to be free from state-created danger. There was, first of all, no
evidence that the chief had coerced her into sexual relations through an abuse
of authority that was shocking to the conscience. The plaintiff did not show
that the defendants violated equal protection by maintaining a policy of
failing to respond to women's complaints of domestic violence, as she offered
only a "smattering" of anecdotal evidence for her assertions. And she
failed to show that she was subjected to a state-created danger, because the
chief's alleged failure to report her domestic abuse claim and the department's
alleged failure to adequately respond to her claims of harassment did not make
her more vulnerable to risks created by others, but rather left her in the same
circumstances she had been in before she sought a protective order. Villanueva
v. City of Scottsbluff, #14-1792, 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 2568 (8th 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.
Officers who used deadly force to
kill a man while responding to a domestic violence call were entitled to
qualified immunity when the decedent made threats and possessed a firearm at
the time of the shooting. The officers were also entitled to official immunity
on state law claims since the evidence showed that they acted reasonably to a
significant threat of death or physical harm. Smith v. City of Brooklyn Park,
#13-1640, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 12594 (8th Cir.).
Officers responded to a 911 call reporting a
situation in which an ex-boyfriend was allegedly brandishing a rifle in an
argument with his former girlfriend after having been released from jail on a
domestic abuse charge. An officer encountering the man running in the area,
with no rifle visible, ordered him to the ground and used force to try to get
him down when he did not obey, including kicking and punching. The man fled
over a wood fence. Four officers eventually caught him, but he continued to
resist, gabbing the fence to try to pull himself up. They punched and kneed
him, struck him in the back with the butt of a shotgun, lay on top of him, and
repeatedly used a Taser in the dart mode on him in an attempt to subdue him.
They managed to use three sets of handcuffs to connect his arms behind his
back, and rolled him over. He was not breathing and he died. No weapon was seen
during the encounter, and none was found. The officer involved in the initial
encounter was entitled to qualified immunity, as a reasonable officer would not
have known that a decision to kick and hit the resisting man in an attempt to
detain him clearly violated the Fourth Amendment. The officers involved in the
second encounter were also entitled to qualified immunity as the plaintiff
failed to show that any of the force used was unconstitutional. Further, even
if it had been unconstitutional, that was not clearly established at the time
under these circumstances. There was insufficient evidence that the officers
intentionally apprehended the decedent in a manner that they believed was
prohibited by law. A state law wrongful death claim and a vicarious liability
claim against the defendant city were both also rejected, with official
immunity applied to these claims. Smith v. City of Minneapolis, #13-1157, 2014
U.S. App. Lexis 10538 (8th Cir.).
A woman had a protective order requiring a man
who had been convicted of domestic abuse to stay away from her and her home.
She told a police officer that the man had been violating the order by calling
and visiting her home. When the officer said that he would contact the man to
get his side of the story, the woman told him that if he did so without
arresting the man, it was very likely that the man would come to her home and
violently retaliate. That was exactly what happened, and the man broke into her
home and shot her three times after being questioned by an officer. A federal
appeals court rejected her substantive due process/state created danger claim
against the officer, as the officer was facing conflicting versions of what had
happened and whether the man had violated the protective order, and his
decision not to arrest him was therefore not conscience shocking. Nothing that
this and other officers did or failed to do showed a state created danger or
the existence of a special relationship imposing a duty to protect. There was
also nothing to show that officers who responded to the incident were
deliberately indifferent to the woman's injuries. The appeals court reversed,
however, summary judgment for the State of Iowa, a halfway house where the man
resided, and the director of that facility, on claims that they were
deliberately indifferent to the man's history of violating a protective order.
The plaintiff did not have notice that the trial court was considering summary
judgment for the state defendants and no opportunity to make legal arguments on
these claims. Montgomery v. City of Ames, #13-2111, 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 6572
(8th Cir.).
The daughter of a man shot and killed by police
while responding to a domestic disturbance call did not have standing to bring
federal civil rights claims when she failed to allege that she was the personal
representative of his estate or his successor in interest. The court also
upheld the rejection of a substantive due process claim, as there was
absolutely no evidence that the officers fired for any reason except self
defense when the man was armed with a knife. Further proceedings, though, were
ordered on California wrongful death claims because reasonable jurors could
find that the use of deadly force was not objectively reasonable and whether he
posed a threat to the officers was a disputed issue. Hayes v. County of San
Diego, #09-55644, 736 F.3d 1223, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 23939 (9th Cr.).
A woman was shot three times by her husband
before he committed suicide. She sued officials , arguing that, while there is
no general obligation to protect specific people against crime, once protective
services are provided, the state cannot protect men while failing to protect
women. She claimed that law enforcement officers should have protected her
because some relatives had told them that her husband was potentially violent
and suicidal. Additionally, she asserted that she had reported that her husband
hit her, obtained an order of protection, that her husband had admitted
violating, and that guns he had acquired were not confiscated despite being
illegally obtained. Further, when her husband was finally arrested for domestic
violence, he was quickly released. A federal appeals court overturned a denial
of qualified immunity for the defendants. It reasoned that the fact that the
defendants had a different assessment of the risk that her husband posed to her
than the plaintiff had did not prove that they engaged in sex discrimination.
Bond v. Atkinson, #11-3275, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 17815 (7th Cir.).
Officers who entered a residence in response to a
report of domestic violence attempted to arrest a man suffering from bipolar
disorder who was fighting with his brother. During the arrest, the man
initially resisted and was armed with a baseball bat. An officer used a Taser
three times in the dart mode after he was ordered to drop the bat. The second
use of the Taser caused him to drop the bat, and the third caused him to fall
to the ground. Two officers then sat on his back. The officer with the Taser
then activated it in the dart mode a fourth time, and then used the Taser in
the stun mode against the arrestee six more times. After the tenth use of the
Taser, the arrestee appeared to be unconscious, went into cardiac arrest and
died. Some officers claimed that the arrestee was continuing to resist efforts
to put him in handcuffs during the last seven deployments of the Taser, that he
was able to regain possession of the bat, and that he tried to bite officers
when he again lost possession of the bat. One officer, however, testified in
her deposition that the arrestee had stopped resisting, that officers were then
sitting on his upper, lower, and middle body, and that he was rigid and kept
his hand underneath his body. Rejecting the claim of the officer who deployed
the Taser for summary judgment, the court stated that, "[i]t is an
excessive and unreasonable use of force for a police officer repeatedly to
administer electrical shocks with a Taser on an individual who no longer is
armed, has been brought to the ground, has been restrained physically by
several other officers, and no longer is resisting arrest." Since officers
using "unnecessary, gratuitous, and disproportionate force" do not
act in an objectively reasonable manner, qualified immunity was not available
as a defense for the last seven uses of the Taser. Qualified immunity was
granted, however, for the first three uses of the Taser and for the warrantless
entry into the residence, which was supported by probable cause. Meyers v. Baltimore
County, #11-2191, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 2282, 2013 WL 388125 (4th Circuit).
A man turned himself in after a warrant was
issued for his arrest for misdemeanor domestic assault. The affidavit for the
warrant said that the arrest would be without bail. The arrestee's request to
post bail or to speak to a judge was denied. The sheriff incorrectly told him
that he had to be held for at least 12 hours because of the charge of domestic
assault. That requirement actually only applied when there was a specific
finding that the arrestee was a threat to the alleged victim, and no such
finding was made. The next morning, a judge set bail and the defendant was
released. Charges were dropped ten months later. The county admitted to having
a policy of holding all domestic violence arrestees for at least 12 hours
regardless of circumstances. A federal appeals court upheld summary judgment on
a lawsuit claiming that the arrestee had been denied procedural due process and
the Eighth Amendment right not to be held on excessive bail. Regardless of any
provisions in state law, the Eighth Amendment relates to the amount of bail,
not its timing and there is no constitutional right to "speedy bail."
The Eighth Amendment does not require a particularized examination before bail
is set, and the use of a bond schedule to set the amount did not mean that it
was excessive. Since no constitutional liberty interest was involved, the due
process claim also failed. Fields v. Henry County., #11-6352, 701 F.3d 180 (6th
Circuit, 2012).
A deaf man arrested in a domestic violence
situation involving him and one of his deaf children stated a viable disability
discrimination claim. He asserted that handcuffing him in the back prevented
him from writing notes in order to communicate with the deputies. "The
injury is the failure to make communication as effective as it would have been
among deputies and persons without disabilities." The deputies were
entitled to qualified immunity from liability, however, based on the exigent circumstances
involved in a domestic violence situation. With the deputies concerned about
their own safety and the safety of the man's family, it was reasonable to try
to accommodate his disability by calling an American Sign Language trainee to
assist in communication, and by attempting to use his father as an interpreter,
even though those accommodations were not the best practices. Seremeth v. Board
of County Commissioners Frederick County, #10-1711, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 5105
(4th Cir.).
A woman brought five children sleeping at her
house (her minor daughter and four minor grandchildren) to the hospital. She
had found blood on the underwear of her daughter and learned that the boys and
girls had slept together rather than in gender-separate rooms. After she refused
to consent to the sedation of the girl for purposes of a sexual assault
examination, she attempted to leave with the children. Medical staff members
and police imposed a 72-hour hold on the girl and the boy suspected of
assaulting her, and ultimately examinations of both children were carried out.
Police and medical personnel were entitled to summary judgment on civil rights
claims brought against them. They did not violate the Fourth Amendment or
Fourteenth Amendment rights of the woman or the children under the
circumstances. Doe v. Tsai, #10-2655, 648 F.3d 584 (8th Cir. 2011).
A federal appeals court overturned a grant of
qualified immunity to a child services caseworker who entered a couple's home
and removed their children to state custody. There were factual issues as to
whether the caseworker recklessly or knowingly made false statements in his
affidavit submitted to a court to obtain an order to enter the home. There were
also issues concerning whether the caseworker was confused as to which children
actually lived with the plaintiffs. Further proceedings were ordered on
unlawful search and seizure claims, as well as procedural and substantive due
process claims. Southerland v. City of New York, #07-4449, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis
11942 (2nd Cir.).
The operator of a day care facility was
prosecuted for felony child abuse after a baby there died of a brain hemorrhage
and a hospital doctor stated that the child died from being shaken in day care.
The doctor failed to reveal before taking the stand in court that there was a
pathology report showing that the shaking occurred before the baby arrived at
the day care facility. The exonerated day care operator filed a federal civil
rights lawsuit against the state director of child services for failure to
enforce policies to ensure that doctors disclose exculpatory evidence to
prosecutors. A federal appeals court, however, ruled that it was not clearly
established that a child services agency had a constitutional duty in these
circumstances to discover or train others to disclose exculpatory evidence in
child abuse cases. Tiscareno v. Anderson, #09-4238, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 4977
(10th Cir.).
A man arrested for violating an injunction
against "dating violence, which prohibited him from contacting a woman in
person or on the phone, or using another person to contact her, claimed that he
was arrested and prosecuted without probable cause. Evidence showed, however,
that the woman, who was a realtor, received four calls from someone named
"Lisa," purporting to be interested in real estate, but that when she
returned the calls, she heard the plaintiff's voice saying "Got
Her!," along with cheering and laughter, and other evidence of possible
violations. Arguable probable cause existed for the obtaining of a capias
warrant for the arrest. Because the plaintiff's case was found to be frivolous,
the defendants were properly awarded attorneys' fees. Angiolillo v. Collier
County, #10-10895, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 17762 (Unpub. 11th Cir.).
An African-American Muslim woman and her three
minor daughters sued the county, its child welfare agency, and several agency
employees for actions taken in the course of a child abuse and neglect
investigation. They claimed that abuse and neglect accusations were fabricated,
that false information about them was released to the media, and that the
defendants acted with racial and religious animus and retaliatory intent
intended to "intimidate and silence" them from complaining, in
violation of their First Amendment rights. After the woman's teenage son
intimated that he suffered physical abuse at home, an investigation resulted in
the removal of the three daughters from the home on accusations that the mother
neglected their educational needs. A year later, the mother was exonerated, and
the complaint was dismissed. A federal appeals court found that claims against
two supervisory officials in the defendant agency were properly rejected as
there was no evidence that they either encouraged or condoned the allegedly
illegal actions of their subordinate, a defendant caseworker. The court also
found no evidence that there had been any intent to "intimidate and
silence" the plaintiffs from exercising their First Amendment rights.
Abdulsalaam v. Franklin County Board of Commissioners, #09-4018, 2010 U.S. App.
Lexis 21334 (Unpub. 6th Cir.).
After a father was acquitted by a jury of charges
that he had sexually abused his minor daughter, he filed a federal civil rights
lawsuit for false arrest, malicious prosecution, and various other claims.
Upholding summary judgment for the defendants, a federal appeals court rejected
the argument that the investigation conducted "shocked the
conscience." While the investigation "certainly may have benefited
from additional interviews and evidence collection," including information
about a past accusation against the father by his other daughter that was found
to be "unfounded," etc., there was still sufficient evidence of
possible abuse to justify the arrest and prosecution. Both were supported by
probable cause based on the daughter's accusations, and the opinions of a
doctor's forensic interview of her. Livingston v. Allegheny County, #10-1596,
2010 U.S. App. Lexis 23339 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
Plaintiffs who were accused of child abuse in
California, but were later exonerated, had their names added to a Child Abuse
Central Index, where they would remain available to various state agencies for
at least 10 years. There was no state mechanism for contesting the inclusion of
their names, nor had Los Angeles County created any procedure to do so. They
sued the county and public officials, claiming that this violated their
constitutional rights. They sought damages, injunctive relief and declaratory
relief. A federal appeals court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment required
the state to provide those on the list with notice and a hearing, and that the
plaintiffs were entitled to declaratory relief and were prevailing parties
entitled to attorney's fees, including $60,000 from the county. The county objected,
claiming that as a municipal entity, it was liable only if its "policy or
custom" caused the deprivation of a plaintiff's federal right, but a state
policy caused any deprivation here. The appeals court ruled that the plaintiffs
did prevail against the county on their claim for declaratory relief because
the policy or custom requirement did not apply to prospective relief claims.
The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, holding that there can be no municipal
liability in the absence of a finding of an official policy or custom
regardless of the type of relief sought or awarded. Los Angeles Cty. v.
Humphries, #09–350, 2010 U.S. Lexis 9444
Police were entitled to qualified immunity in a
lawsuit filed by a man who claimed that they violated his rights by entering
his home without a warrant while responding to a 911 call placed by his wife.
They questioned him and other family members prior to placing him under arrest
for domestic battery, The 911 call, the court found, provided probable cause
for their entry, particularly when police were unable to return the initial
call, and the wife, who admitted making the call, subsequently gave evasive and
false answers as to why she called. The officers acted reasonably in continuing
their investigation and questioning the children who were present. Hanson v.
Dane County, Wis., #09-1759, 608 F.3d 335 (7th Cir. 2010).
A woman claimed that her rights, and those of her
children, were violated when social workers, aided by police officers, used
force to enter her home and remove her children. While all of the woman's
claims were time barred, claims on behalf of her children were not barred by
doctrines preventing federal courts from interfering with state court
judgments. The children's claims did not seek reversal of the decision of a
state juvenile court to award temporary custody of them to the state, but
rather concerned the legality of the actions of the defendants that led up to
the juvenile court's decision. Kovacic v. Cuyahoga County Dep't of Children
& Family Serv., #08-4656, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 10692 (6th Cir.).
The City of Denver reached a $175,000 settlement
in a wrongful arrest lawsuit brought in federal court by a woman mistakenly
arrested for purported violation of a protective order that was supposed to
protect her against her estranged boyfriend. The order barred him from coming
within 100 yards of her, but was not reciprocal. She was arrested for violating
the order when she complained to police that her boyfriend used his truck to
stop her from exiting the parking lot at a police station, resulting in her
spending the night in custody. The settlement agreement also provides for
additional training for officers on how to enforce protective orders. Shroff v.
Spellman, #1:-7-cv-01466, U.S. Dist. Ct. (D. Colo. June 29, 2010).
Prior to the settlement agreement, a federal appeals court rejected
an argument from the arresting officer that he was entitled to qualified
immunity and had arguable probable cause to arrest the plaintiff. The plaintiff
also claimed that her right to privacy was violated. She had to pump breast
milk while in custody because she was breast feeding and the arresting officer
allegedly required her to do so in a manner that exposed her breasts to a
female police cadet. The appeals court found that the trial court did not err
in finding that this constituted an illegal strip search under the
circumstances. Shroff v. Spellman, #09-1084, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 12066 (10th
Cir).
A father claimed that his substantive and
procedural due process rights were violated because he was not notified of an
investigation into allegations that his daughter had been molested and that
someone had coerced her to change her testimony in the ensuing trial. The
appeals court ruled that the father had no clearly established constitutional
right to such information and that the defendants were therefore entitled to
qualified immunity. James v. Rowlands, #08-16642, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 10723
(9th Cir.).
A woman whose home daycare business was subjected
to an investigation sued two state childcare agency employees and a county
deputy for alleged violations of her constitutional rights. The court found
that there was probable cause for the suspension of the business's license
based on a complaint that her son had sexually assaulted his daughter and the
daughter's friend in the home. This probable cause existed regardless of the
deputy's alleged retaliation against the business for failing to cooperate with
his investigation. Because the alleged retaliation did not cause the license
suspension, the deputy was entitled to qualified immunity. Because the
plaintiff voluntarily relinquished her daycare license, her due process claims
against the childcare agency employees were barred. McBeth v. Himes, #07-1165,
2010 U.S. App. Lexis 4893 (10th Cir.).
Police officers took a man's intoxicated
girlfriend from his home after she refused demands that she leave, gave her a
ticket for trespassing, and released her to her mother. Shortly after that, she
returned to her boyfriend's home and fatally shot him, as well as injuring two
others present at the time. The injured persons, and the decedent's estate
claimed that police officers acted improperly in arresting the girlfriend for
trespassing instead of for domestic violence. A domestic violence arrest would
have required that she be kept in custody for 29 hours, the plaintiffs argued,
preventing the shootings. Upholding summary judgment for the officers, a
federal appeals court ruled that the officers had not created or increased the
danger to the decedent and other plaintiffs. The court also rejected equal
protection and due process claims. Estate of Smithers v. City of Flint,
#09-1164, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 8201 (6th Cir.).
A woman, on her own behalf, and on behalf of her
children, sued the city of New York for damages for injuries she suffered when
she was shot by her former boyfriend. The attack took place hours after a
police officer, who knew that the woman had a domestic violence order of
protection against the ex-boyfriend, allegedly told her that officers would
immediately arrest him. The plaintiff claimed that this created a "special
relationship" with her, amounting to an exception to the general rule that
police have no particular duty to protect an individual against violence by
another private person. Rejecting this claim of a special relationship giving
rise to a special duty to provide adequate protection, an intermediate state
appeals court found that the plaintiff failed to prove that she justifiably
relied on the alleged assurance of protection. Her reliance, the court found,
was based on little more than mere belief, as there was no visible police
conduct of any sort after the officer told her there would be an arrest.
Indeed, the plaintiff herself knew that if officers were to attempt to arrest
the boyfriend, they would first need some time to find him. Valdez v. City of
New York, #16507/97, 2010 N.Y. App. Div. Lexis 3408 (1st Dept.).
A New York mother claimed that city employees had
violated her rights and the rights of her infant child in taking actions
accusing her of child abuse. Rejecting these claims, despite the fact that the
child abuse allegations were subsequently withdrawn, a federal appeals court
found that a diagnosis of shaken baby syndrome by two doctors provided
investigating personnel with adequate probable cause to initiate both custody
removal and child abuse proceedings. Even if the personnel involved had been
aware of one doctor's alleged reputation, which included accusations that he
overdiagnosed child abuse, it still would not have made it unreasonable for
them to rely on her diagnosis in taking these steps. V.S. v. Muhammad,
#08-5157, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 3017 (2nd Cir.).
Parents and students claimed that a Nevada state child
protection official improperly removed the students from a school during an
abuse investigation. The action was taken after the official had compiled a
"significant amount" of evidence of sexual activity allegedly taking
place at the school involving staff members and students, as well as poor
living conditions, inadequate medical care, the lack of supervision, and the
possibility that two employees had criminal records. The official, therefore,
could have reasonably concluded that the removal of the students was justified
by a concern for their safety and did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The
actions also did not violate the parents' rights to family integrity under the
Fourteenth Amendment, as the failure to contact them before removing the students
did not violate clearly established law. Barragan v. Landry, #08-16790, 2010
U.S. App. Lexis 483 (Unpub. 9th Cir.).
Parents and students claimed that a Nevada state
child protection official improperly removed the students from a school during
an abuse investigation. The action was taken after the official had compiled a
"significant amount" of evidence of sexual activity allegedly taking
place at the school involving staff members and students, as well as poor
living conditions, inadequate medical care, the lack of supervision, and the
possibility that two employees had criminal records. The official, therefore,
could have reasonably concluded that the removal of the students was justified
by a concern for their safety and did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The
actions also did not violate the parents' rights to family integrity under the
Fourteenth Amendment, as the failure to contact them before removing the
students did not violate clearly established law. Barragan v. Landry,
#08-16790, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 483 (Unpub. 9th Cir.).
A caseworker and a deputy sheriff seized and
interrogated one of a woman's daughters for two hours in a private office at
her school, allegedly without a warrant, probable cause or parental consent,
because they suspected that the woman's husband had been sexually molesting
her. The caseworker later obtained a court order removing both of the woman's
daughters from her home and subjected them to "intrusive" sexual
abuse examinations. A federal appeals court found that the "special
needs" search doctrine could not apply to justify the seizure, given the
deep involvement of law enforcement personnel and purposes. The decision to
seize and interrogate the first daughter without a warrant, court order, exigent
circumstances or parental consent was unconstitutional, in violation of the
Fourth Amendment. But the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity
because the application of the Fourth Amendment to an in school seizure of a
suspected sexual abuse victim was not clearly established. The caseworker was
not, however, entitled to qualified immunity on a claim of having made a false
representation. Further proceedings were required on due process claims
regarding the obtaining of the child removal order and the exclusion of the
mother from her daughter's medical examinations. Greene v. Camreta, #06-35333,
2009 U.S. App. Lexis 26891 (9th Cir.).
The use of a Taser against a husband in a
domestic violence case did not violate his rights, given the close quarters in which
the officers and the plaintiffs encountered each other and the intoxicated
state the husband was in, which indicated that the officers faced a very real
threat of immediate harm. Mattos v. Agarano, #08-15567, 2010 U.S. App.
Lexis 694 (9th Cir.).
State social workers were properly granted
qualified immunity for taking custody of the plaintiff's children. The right of
parents and children to live together without interference is limited by a
governmental need to investigate serious abuse claims. In this case, there was
good cause for the defendants to believe that parental sexual abuse had taken
place, and under such circumstances, they did not need a court order to remove
the children to protect them against what they believed was an imminent danger
of serious bodily injury. As for claims concerning the defendants' subsequent
filing of a custody petition and alleged falsification of evidence in
connection with it, they were entitled to absolute immunity. Haldeman v.
Golden, #08-15648, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 25610 (Unpub. 9th Cir).
Attorney employees of a city's child welfare agency
were entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity for actions taken in
connection with an investigation into the death of the plaintiff's infant son,
since their function was similar to that of a prosecutor. Caseworkers involved
in the case, however, acted more like investigators than prosecutors, so they
could assert, at most, qualified immunity defenses, and were not entitled to
absolute immunity from liability. Cornejo v. Bell, No. 08-3069 2010 U.S. App.
Lexis 38 (2nd Cir.).
A police officer who went to a woman's home to
respond to a domestic violence complaint concerning her boyfriend, who had
fled, was justified in arresting her for violating a state child endangerment
statute, based on her observations of the condition of the apartment, including
her concerns that the woman's son could hurt himself by picking up the razor
blades that were on the floor, ingesting the cigarette butts on the floor,
being attacked by the pit bull in the kitchen, or drowning in the sewage that
was in the bathtub. Herrera v. City of Albuquerque, #09-2010, 2009 U.S. App.
Lexis 27104 (10th Cir.).
A fourteen-year old daughter ran away from the
home of her mother and stepfather. Her mother and father were divorced. When
interviewed, she told an officer that her stepfather had struck her and also
that he repeatedly grabbed her breasts. The officer, without contacting the
father, and lacking a warrant, took the girl into protective custody. The
father, mother, and stepfather sued, claiming that the officer violated their
Fourteenth Amendment right to familial association. A federal appeals court
upheld summary judgment for the officer because he had a reasonable basis to
belief that the girl faced imminent danger of physical harm, and the officer
was entitled to qualified immunity on claims arising from his failure to
contact the father. The county, however, was not entitled to summary judgment
on the father's claim that the failure to contact him violated his rights.
Burke v County of Alameda, #08-15658, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 24715 (9th Cir.).
Three officers went to the home of a man's
brother, after the man's girlfriend told them that he had assaulted her and may
have gone there. Two officers handcuffed the brother after he answered the
door, while the third officer made a warrantless entry into the house to look
for the suspect. A federal appeals court rejected the argument that the
warrantless entry was justified by the possible presence inside of the house of
a domestic violence suspect with a child. No facts were asserted which would
indicate that the suspect was a threat to his child or anyone else, and a
belief that an unarmed domestic violence suspect may be present does not justify
a protective sweep of the premises under these conditions. A jury could also
find that the use of force against the brother was not objectively reasonable,
since he did not resist and was given no time to comply with a request to step
outside before he was forcibly removed and subsequently allegedly injured. The
officers were not entitled to qualified immunity. Smith v. Kansas City,
#09-1484, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 24591 (8th Cir.).
Parents' minor children were removed from their custody
by county workers after a drug raid at the home found both drugs and filthy
living conditions. The parents claimed that their due process rights were
violated because there was no custody hearing within 72 hours, as required by a
Pennsylvania state statute, but instead a hearing four days later, which
decided that the children should not be returned to them. A federal appeals
court held that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity since it was
objectively reasonable for them to believe they were acting lawfully under the
circumstances presented. A violation of a state statute does not necessarily
show a violation of federal constitutional procedural due process.
Jarovits v. Monroe County Children and Youth Services, #07-4336, 2009
U.S. App. Lexis 20875 (Unpub. 3rd Cir.).
A police detective was entitled to qualified
immunity on a father's claim that his procedural due process rights were
violated when the detective, acting on doctors' advice, without prior notice to
the father, temporarily took the father's infant daughter into custody in order
to provide the child with diagnostic tests and treatment. The mother had
brought the infant to the hospital. A federal appeals court found that there
had been a genuine issue of fact as to whether or not the infant had been in
imminent danger when she was removed from her mother's custody. It was not
clearly established, at the time of the incident, that the detective was
legally required to provide pre-deprivation notice to an absent parent as well
as to the parent at the hospital. Any right to post-deprivation notice that the
father had was satisfied by one he received from a child protective services
agency. Mueller v. Auker, #07-35554, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 17826 (9th Cir.).
The live-in girlfriend of a local tavern
part-owner claimed that her boyfriend was well known to local police, who
socialized with him at his tavern, where he allegedly bragged to them that he
could "get away" with what he wanted in the village. She allegedly
repeatedly called police for assistance when her boyfriend abused her, but
police failed to arrest him or interview him at any length about these
incidents, filing only one domestic incident report. Police allegedly refused
to arrest the boyfriend even after he violated an order of protection. While a
federal appeals court upheld the rejection of the woman's equal protection
claims, it overturned summary judgment for officers on her due process claims,
finding a genuine issue of fact as to whether the officers "implicitly but
affirmatively sanctioned" the alleged abuse. The court also ordered
further proceedings on whether the village's failure to adequately train its
officers, or the policies and customs that it has sanctioned, caused the
individual officers to violate her rights. Okin v. Cornwall-on-Hudson,
#06-5142, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 18422 (2nd Cir.).
After school officials saw red marks on a boy's
nose, they called child protective services and a social worker took the child
into custody. The child stated that he had been hit and pinched by his father
and was afraid to go home, so he was placed into a child receiving home rather
than allowed to go home on the school bus. The boy's parents filed a federal
civil rights lawsuit for violation of their son's Fourth Amendment rights and
violation of their own Fourteenth Amendment rights to familial association.
Under these circumstances, and given the very short time period within which to
decide, a federal appeals court found, the social worker could have reasonably
believed that her actions were lawful and needed to protect the boy against the
danger of serious bodily harm. Even if these actions did violate the parents'
rights, the social worker was entitled to qualified immunity. Springer v.
Placer County, #08-15392, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 13112 (Unpub. 9th Cir.).
A mother and the adoptive father sued a county
and prosecutors for alleged violations of their child's Fourteenth Amendment
equal protection rights by declining to prosecute the child's biological father
for child sexual assault. The right to assert an equal protection claim is
available to those subject to or threatened to discriminatory prosecution, the
appeals court stated, but has never been recognized as extending to crime
victims who claim to have been injured by the failure to prosecute an offender.
As the plaintiffs' claimed injury was from the failure to prosecute the
biological father, rather than based on failure to provide police protection,
the court upheld dismissal of the lawsuit. Parkhurst v. Tabor, #08-2610, 2009
U.S. App. Lexis 13774 (8th Cir.).
A lawsuit claimed that officers failed to provide
protection required under the Illinois Domestic Violence Act when a woman,
subsequently killed, repeatedly contacted police to complain that her husband
was threatening to use guns in their home to kill her. An intermediate Illinois
appeals court ruled that the trial court had improperly dismissed the lawsuit,
erroneously ruling that the protection of the statute did not apply in the
absence of the decedent having obtained or attempted to obtain a domestic
violence order of protection. Beyer v. The City of Joliet, No. 3-08-0023, 2009
Ill. App. Lexis 356 (3rd Dist.).
After a woman's intoxicated boyfriend was
arrested for assaulting her at a bar, he allegedly was released that evening,
despite having told police that he was on probation for an aggravated assault,
and having stated that it "was not over" between himself and his
girlfriend. After his release, he again attacked her, causing her severe permanent
injuries. Rejecting a due process failure to warn claim, the court found that
the officers' failure to warn the plaintiff of her boyfriend's release did not
"shock the conscience" or constitute deliberate indifference. The
federal court, after dismissing the civil rights claim, declined to exercise
jurisdiction over state law claims in the lawsuit. Caissie v. City of Cape May,
#1:08-cv-0303, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 44666 (D.N.J.).
Officers did not act unreasonably for arresting a man
for violating a domestic violence order of protection after his wife told them
he had violated the order. A reasonable officer would not have believed her
later statement that the protection order had been vacated when she complained
about her husband violating it after the date of the alleged vacating. Further,
the record contained no evidence of a written order vacating the protective
order. Even if it actually had been vacated, under these circumstances no
reasonable officer would have believed that the arrest was illegal, given no
proof that the order was not still in effect. Martin v. Russell, #08-2577, 2009
U.S. App. Lexis 9642 (8th Cir.).
Mother failed to establish claims that a
caseworker and police investigator violated the due process rights of her and
her children by allegedly suppressing evidence of physical and sexual abuse of
the children by their father and providing false or misleading testimony about
the mother's actions during custody hearings. The federal civil rights claims
were barred since they involved issues that had been decided in the custody
proceedings by state courts. The mother could not, acting as her own lawyer,
pursue disability discrimination claims on behalf of one of her children, who
has a speech disability, based on the alleged failure of the defendants to
provide assistance from a qualified speech therapist for the child during their
interviews concerning possible sexual abuse. Shaw v. Lynchburg Dept. of Social
Services, #6:08CV00022, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 6659 (W.D. Va.).
Police department was entitled to immunity from
liability under Illinois law on the claim that its personnel acted willfully
and wantonly in failing to prevent a woman from being killed by her
ex-boyfriend. The ex-boyfriend's chiropractor told the police department that the
ex-boyfriend was talking about having the ex-girlfriend killed and seeking to
set up a pattern of appointments as a possible alibi. Rejecting the argument
that a limitation to tort immunity contained in a state domestic violence law
applied, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that it was inapplicable because
police were not involved in enforcement of the domestic violence statute at the
time of the murder. Lacey v. The Village of Palatine, #106353, 2009 Ill. Lexis
186.
Defendants not directly participating in alleged
due process violations in connection with the maintenance of California's Child
Abuse Central Index, or who merely reasonably complied with the duly enacted
statutes could not be held liable for purportedly denying identified individuals
with a fair chance to challenge the accusations against them. The plaintiffs
were placed on the index of child abusers despite the findings of two courts
that the accusations against them by a "rebellious" child were
"not true." The court held that California, in maintaining the index,
violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to
provide the plaintiffs with a fair opportunity to challenge their inclusion.
The county was not entitled to summary judgment on the claims against it, although
individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. Humphries v. County
of Los Angeles, No. 05-56467, 547 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2008).
California state programs that provided benefits
for women and their children who were the victims of domestic violence, while
denying such programs to men and their children who are the victims of domestic
violence violated the equal protection guarantees of the state Constitution.
Even if fewer men than women were affected by domestic violence, this did not
mean that they were not similarly situated to women or provide a compelling
governmental interest justifying a gender-based classification. Woods v.
Shewry, #C056072, 2008 Cal. App. Lexis 1588 167 Cal. App. 4th 658; 84 Cal.
Rptr. 3d 332 (3rd Dist. Cal. App.).
A woman told police that her roommate was trying
to hit her boyfriend with a screwdriver, and the boyfriend stated that the
roommate came towards him with the screwdriver and threw it at him. During an
arrest of the roommate for domestic violence, the roommate's arm was broken.
Rejecting both false arrest and excessive force claims, a federal appeals court
found that there was probable cause for the arrest, and sufficient evidence
from which a jury could believe the officer's statements indicating that the
arm was broken during the use of a restraint hold used after the arrestee
elbowed the officer. Rosa v City of Fort Myers, FL., No. 07-15763, 2008 U.S.
App. Lexis 22243 (Unpub. 11th Cir.),
A woman called police and claimed that her
husband had been drinking and was trying to leave with their infant daughter.
The officers found that the husband was sober and he went to visit relatives.
He slept in the same bed as the daughter and another child, and when he woke
up, the daughter was dead. The wife claimed that officers who responded to her
call improperly threatened to arrest her if she removed her daughter from her
husband's car. While the officers claimed that they had a reasonable belief
that the mother was about to violate a Tennessee state domestic assault law,
the court ruled that the mother, at the time, had a legal right to her
daughter, so that removing the child from the car would not have violated the
statute. The mother was denied summary judgment, as were the officers on a
Fourth Amendment claim, but they were granted summary judgment on a 14th
Amendment due process claim. The mother failed to show that the city was liable
on the basis of inadequate training of the officers. Adams v. Hendersonville,
No. 3:06-cv-00788, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 72003 (M.D. Tenn.).
After a woman called 911 to complain about a
domestic dispute, her boyfriend was found dead from a gunshot wound in the back
of his head. She was interrogated by police for between six and eight hours
before she confessed, but a jury later acquitted her of murder charges.
Interrogation techniques used by deputies, such as telling her that she would
never see her children again, not letting her sleep, and not allowing her to
take anti-anxiety medicine, did not shock the conscience in violation of her
due process rights. The court further found that medical examiners did not have
a duty under Florida law to continue investigating the decedent's cause of
death, even though the evidence did not rule out the possibility that the wound
might have been self-inflicted. The court also found that there was probable
cause for the arrest under these circumstances. Smith v. Campbell, No.
08-11161, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 19085 (Unpub. 11th Cir.).
A federal court dismissed civil rights claims by the
estate of a woman allegedly murdered by a sheriff's deputy, her ex-husband,
after other deputies allegedly failed to arrest him following her domestic
violence call. The civil rights claim was based on a "class-of-one"
equal protection argument, but the plaintiff failed to show that the deputies,
in failing to arrest their fellow deputy, had adopted a policy directed at
discriminating against the decedent. Florida state law negligence claims
against the county sheriff remain at issue. The Estate of Hawkins v. Eslinger,
No. 6:07-cv-1261, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 39492 (M.D. Fla.).
A woman married to a police officer failed to
show that she was denied equal protection regarding alleged incidents of
domestic violence. The wife claimed that officers unjustifiably stopped her on
a number of occasions, that her husband stalked her in his police vehicle, and
that she was intentionally treated differently than other victims of domestic
violence not married to police officers. To the contrary, the court found that
officers took steps to try to protect the wife, even over the objections of
both her husband and herself, including going to their home in response to a
911 call which was made and then "rescinded," and filing various
reports. Any actual difference in treatment was the result of the wife's own
requests, as she asked that only "informal" measures be taken to stop
her husband's alleged violent actions. Mata v. City of Kingsville, Tex., No.
06-41518, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 9211 (5th Cir.).
An undersheriff was entitled to qualified
immunity on an equal protection claim asserted by a lesbian who obtained an
emergency protective order based on alleged domestic violence by her estranged
girlfriend, but not on claims that he refused to enforce a permanent protective
order that she subsequently obtained. The emergency order allowed the
girlfriend to access the home for a period of time to retrieve some of her
property, while the permanent order barred her from the premises altogether.
The plaintiff claimed that she was provided with a lesser degree of protection
than that provided to heterosexual victims of domestic violence. The court also
allowed a Fourth Amendment claim to proceed on the basis that the undersheriff
told the plaintiff not to return to her home while her girlfriend was present,
and that he would arrest her if she did, which allegedly facilitated the
girlfriend's seizure of some of the plaintiff's property from the premises.
Price-Cornelison v. Brooks, No. 05-6140, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 9628 (10th Cir.).
Minor failed to show that there was a mandatory
duty under California state law to protect her from violence by her father, who
stabbed her in the heart and lung. The father had previously been arrested for
screaming in an uncontrollable manner in the street and around his apartment,
and violently banging on a refrigerator. Following the arrest, a urine test
showed that he was under the influence of phencyclidine. Even though the
ensuing investigation by a social worker was "lousy" and failed to
make a proper determination about the risk of returning the minor to her
father, there was immunity from liability for the exercise of discretion under
these circumstances. Ortega v. Sacramento County Dept. of Health
& Human Services, No C054262, 2008 Cal. App. Lexis 470 (3rd Dist.).
A deputy who arrested a husband for violating a
protective order obtained by his wife barring him from entering the driveway of
his wife's residence had probable cause for the arrest, even if he made a
mistake in interpreting the order as to the meaning of the word driveway as
specified in the particular order at issue. This mistaken interpretation of the
order did not forfeit the deputy's immunity for enforcing a court order,
particularly when he contacted a dispatcher to attempt to get a clarification
of the meaning of the order. James v. Adams County, Idaho, No. 06-35296, 2008
U.S. App. Lexis 6562 (9th Cir.).
A township's general order told police to regard
domestic violence scenes as criminal investigations, to make contact with all
involved parties, and to impound and secure as evidence any weapons. In a
lawsuit filed by a domestic violence arrestee, the court found that this order
was not facially unconstitutional, and that no proof had been presented that officers
had implemented that policy in a way that permitted unreasonable searches and
seizures. The police, when they arrived at the scene, observed both a
"bloody victim" and a third individual who was not either the victim
or assailant, but who did not cooperate with their inquiries, but instead acted
belligerently in response to their questions. The arrestee's criminal
conviction was upheld on appeal, and the appeals court in the federal civil
rights lawsuit upheld summary judgment for the defendants. Lawrence v.
Bloomfield Township, No. 05-2511, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 5372 (6th Cir.).
Claims were properly asserted against
municipality and its personnel for alleged failure to protect two victims of
domestic violence from being murdered after receiving information of a man's
alleged plan to engage in a murder for hire scheme. The man had engaged in a
pattern of abuse, according to the plaintiffs, while living with a woman, who
then obtained protective orders against him. Subsequently, the man's chiropractor
allegedly contacted police and reported that the man had been asking if there
was anyone who could be hired to kill the woman or "break her legs."
The Complaint alleges that the failure to protect the woman and another family
member who was also murdered at the same time violated the Illinois Domestic
Violence Act, 750 ILCS 60/101 et seq. An intermediate Illinois appeals
court found that the alleged willful and wanton failure to provide protection
under the circumstances was adequate to survive a motion to dismiss, and that
the provisions of a state Tort Immunity Act did not override the protections
provided by the Domestic Violence Act. The court also ruled, however, that the
second murder victim, who was not named in the protective order, was not a protected
person under the statute, so that claims involving her death were properly
dismissed. Lacey v. Village of Palatine, No. 1062842, 2008 Ill. App. Lexis 61
(Ill. App. 1st Dist.).
A woman who was shot and injured by her
husband after obtaining a protective order against him under Texas law,
established a factual issue as to whether police violated state law in failing
to follow the provisions of a state domestic violence statute. The plaintiff,
however, failed to provide evidence that the alleged failure to enforce the
state law was motivated by discriminatory intent against women. Her allegation
that officers threatened to take away her children if she kept calling to
complain about her husband did not establish such discriminatory intent. The city,
a police chief, and a police officer were therefore entitled to summary
judgment. Kelley v. City of Wake Village, Texas, No. 07-40227, 2008 U.S. App.
Lexis 2441 (5th Cir.).
Officers were not entitled to qualified immunity
on claims that they unlawfully entered a woman's home without consent or
exigent circumstances while responding to a domestic disturbance call. At the
time of their entry, the domestic dispute had allegedly been
"neutralized" and there were no facts that would have caused the
officers to believe that any one was in danger inside the home. The court also
found that there was evidence from which a jury could find that an officer used
excessive force in arresting the woman, causing her injuries at a time when she
had not committed a crime and did not pose a threat to anyone. Campbell v.
Clay, No. 07-13040, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 2928 (11th Cir.).
Spouse of a police officer who shot and injured
her before shooting and killing himself did not show a violation of her
substantive or procedural due process rights on the basis of the police
department's failure to arrest him when she previously reported incidents of
abuse after obtaining protective orders. The mere failure to act did not
violate her rights or bring his assault on her within the bounds of a
"state-created danger" theory of liability. The appeals court also
rejected the spouse's equal protection claim, since there was no evidence from
which a reasonable jury could find an unlawful custom or believe that a
discriminatory motive was behind the failure to arrest the plaintiff's husband.
There was no constitutional duty to protect the plaintiff from abuse by her
spouse. Burella v. City of Philadelphia, No. 04-1157/2495, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis
21924 (3rd Cir.).
Man arrested during a domestic disturbance did
not assert a valid false arrest claim when a Connecticut statute required the
officers to place persons suspected of family violence under arrest. The
dismissal of charges against him in exchange for his agreement to attend counseling
was not a favorable disposition in the arrestee's favor for purposes of a
malicious prosecution claim. The arrestee could proceed, however, on his claims
for excessive use of force and failure to provide needed medical attention.
Clark v. Dowty, No. 3:05-cv-1345, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 49184 (D. Conn.).
Federal appeals court reinstates lawsuit by woman
who claimed that when she tried to report her boyfriend's assault to deputies
after she broke up with him, they would not allow her to file a complaint, and
that they subsequently took her to a psychiatric center for commitment, which
occurred because they lied about her actions. Her boyfriend was a town
employee, and allegedly a personal friend of a number of the deputies. The
appeals court found that the trial court improperly disregarded evidence which
was sufficient to have allowed a jury to find that one or more of the deputies
lied to get her committed, and that the plaintiff presented enough evidence
that the deputies acted to have her committed in retaliation for her trying to
file a complaint. Meyer v. Board of County Commissioners of Harper County,
Oklahoma, No. 04-6106, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 8629 (10th Cir.).
Surviving family members of woman who was killed
by her husband failed to show that officers should be held liable for failure
to protect her. Mere promises of additional police patrols in the area did not
constitute an enhancement of the danger to the decedent for purposes of the
"state-created danger" doctrine. Brooks v. Knapp, No. 06-1352, 2007
U.S. App. Lexis 5966 (6th Cir.).
Police officer had probable cause to arrest
husband for allegedly striking his daughter above her eye, based on a report by
his wife. Crosset v. Marquette, No. C-060148, 2007 Ohio App. Lexis 508 (1st Dist.).[N/R]
Police officers were entitled to qualified
immunity for allegedly failing to prevent the murder of a son by his father,
despite repeated calls to the police and the existence of a protective order,
since the officers had discretion as to what actions to take in enforcing the
protective order issued under Tennessee state law. Hudson v. Hudson, No.
05-6575, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 1705 (6th Cir.). [N/R]
Police officer was not liable to domestic
violence victim for failing, while filling out paperwork to charge her
ex-boyfriend with violation of a protective order, to check off box to keep her
address confidential. The boyfriend, after his release from prison, allegedly
subsequently obtained a copy of the paperwork containing her current address,
and the victim accordingly feared that he would harm her, so she allegedly felt
compelled to move to a new address. The plaintiff failed to show, as required
for liability for violation of her right to privacy, that the officer acted
with deliberate indifference to her rights. Hanigan v. City of Kent, Case No.
C06-176, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 89489 (W.D. Wash.). [N/R]
Man arrested for domestic violence failed to show
that law enforcement officers caused his bail to be set at an allegedly
excessive amount of $1 million in violation of the Eighth Amendment. While the
officers had engaged in a discussion of the need for a higher than average bail
because of their belief that the arrestee could post the usual default amount,
and because the alleged victim was in fear for her safety, the bail amount was
ultimately set by a Bail Commissioner. While a federal appeals court disagreed
with the trial court's conclusion that the $1 million was not excessive, it
found that the plaintiff failed to produce evidence on the reason for the
amount, failing to create a viable issue as to whether it was
unconstitutionally enhanced. Galen v. County of Los Angeles, No. 04-55274, 2006
U.S. App. Lexis 27465 (9th Cir.). [N/R]
New York high court rules that officers who allegedly
failed to remove weapons from home when called to the scene of a domestic
dispute were not liable for estranged husband's action, after they left, of
shooting and injuring wife before killing himself with the same gun. Without a
"special relationship" imposing a duty to provide protection,
officers "cannot be expected to predict and prevent irrational
behavior." Halpin v. Town of Lancaster, No. 167 SSM 26, 2006 N.Y. Lexis
2551. [2006 LR Nov]
Deputy sheriff was not liable for failing to
arrest woman's boyfriend at her residence the night before he beat her to
death. Even if he had suspected domestic abuse when summoned to the house,
arrest in those circumstances was discretionary rather than mandatory under
Kentucky state law, and, additionally, he observed no signs of violence or
abuse. Howard v. Bayes, No. 05-5076, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 20378 (6th Cir.).
[2006 LR Oct]
Several arrests of a police officer's wife, under
valid arrest warrants, in connection with domestic disputes, did not violate
her rights when the plaintiff failed to show that there were any false
statements in the affidavits seeking the warrants. The failure of investigating
officers to immediately arrest her husband when she stated that he had attacked
her did not violate her due process rights. Investigating officer looked into
both husband's and wife's versions of the incident, and two days later obtained
arrest warrants for both of them. Zappone v. Town of Watertown, No. CIV.
3:99CV00944, 427 F. Supp. 2d 83 (D. Conn. 2006). [N/R]
Officers and county were not liable for
responding to 911 call concerning woman's drunken estranged husband's visit to
her sister's house, and failing to prevent him from shooting and killing his
wife, shooting his brother-in-law and sister-in-law, and then killing himself.
Nothing the officers did created or enhanced the danger. Tanner v. County of
Lenawee, No. 05-1107, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 15566 (6th Cir.). ) [2006 LR Aug]
Enforcement by a city and county of a court
"no-contact" order, entered against a man in a criminal proceeding
for domestic assault, even though it prevented him from returning to his home,
where he lived with the woman he was accused of assaulting, was not a
"taking" of private property entitling him to compensation. The
actions taken were carried out in enforcing a facially valid court order, and
the defendants' employees could not make their own determination of the merits
or enforceability of that order. Borlaug v. City of Cedar Falls, No. 05-6847,
710 N.W.2d 541 (Iowa App. 2006). [N/R]
Man's actions in taking photographs in front of
the home of a person who had obtained a protective order against him provided
officer with arguable probable cause to initiate a criminal prosecution against
him for harassment in the second degree, entitling the officer to qualified
immunity in a resulting malicious prosecution lawsuit. The arrestee's actions
could have been viewed by a reasonable officer as constituting a threat of
further violence. Jaegly v. Couch, No. 05-2191, 168 Fed. Appx. 480 (2nd Cir.
2006). [N/R]
Man arrested in domestic violence matter failed
to show that any possible violation of his right to equal protection was based
on a county policy of discrimination against males in such circumstances, so
that he could not pursue his claims against the county. Arresting officers were
entitled to qualified immunity on arrestee's claim that they violated his
Second Amendment rights by seizing his guns during a search of his residence,
since there was no clearly established individual Second Amendment
constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Bloomquist v. Albee, No. Civ.
03-276, 421 F. Supp. 2d 162 (D. Me. 2006). [N/R]
Husband, involved in divorce proceedings with his
wife, did not show that police officer violated his right to equal protection,
as a member of a class of persons involved in domestic disputes, by refusing to
treat his complaint that his wife had stolen his personal property the same as
a similar complaint by other persons. The officer was entitled to qualified
immunity, since the alleged right violated was not clearly established in 1999.
The officer could also reasonably believe in the lawfulness of his refusal to
further investigate the husband's complaint, to arrest the wife, or to search her
home for pieces of a silverware set, when the silverware was not on a list of
items that the husband could remove from the home which had been approved in
the divorce proceeding. Fedor v. Kudrak, No. 3:02 CV 1489, 421 F. Supp. 2d 473
(D. Conn. 2006). [N/R]
Illinois Supreme Court rules that police officers
who allegedly failed to assist domestic violence victim in response to 911 call
were not entitled to absolute immunity under state law on a claim that their
inaction was willful and wanton conduct which caused her death when her husband
subsequently shot her. More specific limited immunity provision of domestic
violence statute applied instead, with an exception for willful and wanton
conduct. Moore v. Green, No. 100029, 2006 Ill. Lexis 613. [2006 LR Jun]
County sheriff and other law enforcement
officials were not liable for failing to protect woman from being murdered by
her estranged husband based on their alleged failure to take adequate measures
in response to her report that he had assaulted and raped her two weeks before.
There was no indication that the decedent had justifiably relied on any
affirmative promises by the defendants to provide protection or take particular
action, and therefore no "special relationship" between the defendants
and the decedent sufficient to support the imposition of liability. Kromer v.
County of Onondaga, 809 N.Y.S.2d 723 (A.D. 4th Dept. 2006). [N/R]
County and officer were not liable for woman's
murder by her boyfriend, based on officer's dispatch to her residence following
911 calls, and decision to leave when he failed to hear any indications of a
dispute inside. These actions neither created nor increased the danger that the
woman would be killed, so there could be no liability under a "state-created
danger" theory. May v. Franklin County Comm'rs, No. 05-3188, 2006 U.S.
App. Lexis 3528 (6th Cir.). [2006 LR Apr]
Police officers reporting to the scene of a
domestic dispute did not have an affirmative duty to remove weapons from the
home, and therefore could not be liable for the husband's subsequent action of
shooting his wife before killing himself. Halpin v. Town of Lancaster, 806
N.Y.S.2d 810 (A.D. 4th Dept. 2005). [N/R]
Police officers who encountered an intoxicated
man who threatened his wife, disabled her car, and refused to cooperate with
being arrested and handcuffed did not act unreasonably in using physical force
and mace to subdue him. They could reasonably believe, under the circumstances,
that he posed a threat to his wife, children, others present, and themselves.
Wilson v. Flynn, No. 04-2491, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 24555 (4th Cir.). [2006 LR
Jan]
Police officer who stood outside residence while
an estranged husband removed property when his wife was absent did not violate
the Fourth Amendment. He had no reason to know that the husband would either
remove property that was not his or vandalize the wife's property. Pepper v.
Village of Oak Park, No. 04-3948, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 26050 (7th Cir.). [2006
LR Jan]
Law enforcement agencies were not liable for the
deaths of a mother and son shot and killed by their estranged husband and
father, whose gun, previously taken away when officers responded to a domestic
violence call, was subsequently returned to him and then used to shoot them.
First, the estranged husband/father had access to another gun in any event, and
secondly, the murder victims had no constitutionally protected property
interest, protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, to
enforcement of a domestic violence protective order entered under Pennsylvania
law. Starr v. Price, No. 3:03 CV 636, 385 F. Supp. 2d 502 (M.D. Pa. 2005).
[N/R]
A Mississippi state statute providing immunity
for officers who take reasonable measures to prevent domestic violence did not
apply to an officer who allegedly first handcuffed an arrestee during a
domestic violence call and then ground the arrestee's face into the concrete
floor in reckless disregard of the arrestee's safety. City of Jackson v.
Calcote, No. 2003-CA-01318-COA, 910 So. 2d 1103 (Miss. App. 2005). [N/R]
Police officer acted reasonably in shooting a man
who had barricaded himself in his bedroom armed with a number of guns after
officers came to his house in response to a domestic disturbance call, and who
threatened to shoot officers if they attempted to remove him from the home.
Just prior to the officer shooting him, the suspect had raised a window and
announced that he now had a "clean shot." Phillips v. James, No.
03-4272, 422 F.3d 1075 (10th Cir. 2005). [2005 LR Dec]
Father of children was not deprived of equal
protection of law, nor were his due process rights as a parent violated when
police officers and prosecutors failed to find probable cause to arrest his
child's biological mother for kidnapping, but prosecuted him for alleged
domestic violence. There was no evidence that the defendants were motivated by
gender bias. Burrell v. Anderson, No. CIV.04-43, 353 F. Supp. 2d 55 (D. Me.
2005). [N/R]
County was not liable to domestic violence
arrestee on his claim that his rights were violated by conditioning his release
on bail on his attending a domestic violence program which was also utilized as
part of the sentence for others convicted for the same offense. The plaintiff
failed to show that this was imposed as a condition of his release on bail
pursuant to an official county policy or custom. The arrestee, who was a black
man who had been dating a white woman, also failed to show that there was a
county policy of treating black men who date white women differently than
others accused of domestic violence when it came to setting the conditions of
their bail. In fact, the court ruled, the county did not make or control the
making of bail decisions, which was solely within the powers of the county
court. McLaurin v. New Rochelle Police Officers, No. 03-CIV-10037, 368 F. Supp.
289 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). [N/R]
D.C.'s failure to discipline a police officer for
allegedly improperly assaulting and arresting her brother-in-law was not an
adequate basis for a federal civil rights claim against the municipality for
inadequate supervision. The officer's conduct was investigated, her police
powers were suspended during the investigation, and the officer was then
provided with counseling about being involved in domestic disputes, which
showed that the District was not deliberately indifferent to any existing
problem. McRae v. Olive, No. CIV.A 03-00696, 368 F. Supp. 2d 91 (D.D.C. 2005).
[N/R]
Deputy sheriff was not liable for failing to arrest man
allegedly suspected of fighting with his girlfriend, who subsequently murdered
her, since the duties imposed on him under a Kentucky domestic violence statute
were discretionary. Plaintiffs also failed to show that the deputy had
"created" or enhanced the danger to the girlfriend for purposes of
the "state-created-danger" doctrine. Howard v. Bayes, No. CIV.A.
7:02-204, 378 F. Supp. 2d 753 (E.D. Ky. 2005). [N/R]
Man arrested during officers' response to
domestic violence call failed to show that excessive force was used against
him. While officers allegedly hit him about the neck, shoulders, and wrist with
their nightsticks and wrestled him to the ground, the arrestee refused to
cooperate with the officers, fought with them, disarmed one of them, and grabbed
a second officer by the groin. Under these circumstances, the amount of force
used by the officers was not objectively unreasonable. Plaintiff arrestee also
failed to establish, as he claimed, that the city had a "widespread
practice" of abusing "men of color" who dated white women.
McLaurin v. New Rochelle Police Officers, #03 CIV. 10037, 373 F. Supp. 2d 385
(S.D.N.Y. 2005). [N/R]
Man arrested in domestic violence investigation
failed to show that his right to equal protection of law was violated by the
failure of the county and its prosecutor to investigate his complaint against
his ex-wife in the same manner as they investigated her complaint against him.
Staley v. Grady, No. 03CIV.7949, 371 F. Supp. 2d 411 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). [N/R]
U.S. Supreme Court rejects claim that woman
granted a restraining order against her estranged husband had a
constitutionally protected due process property interest in having police
enforce it. Plaintiff alleged that the failure of police to do so resulted in
the murder of her three minor daughters by her husband while violating the
order. Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, No. 04-278, 2005 U.S. Lexis 5214. [2005
LR Aug]
The Illinois Domestic Violence Act, 750 ILCS
60/305, which waived liability against municipalities for officers' willful and
wanton misconduct, rather than the absolute immunity allegedly provided to
officers under the Tort Immunity Act, 745 ILCS 10/4-102, applied to a lawsuit
brought by the estate of a domestic abuse victim seeking damages for wrongful
death against officers who allegedly failed to adequately investigate a 911
call reporting domestic violence and left the scene of the disturbance only
minutes before the husband shot the wife to death. Moore v. Green, #1-03-2651,
822 N.E.2d 69 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. 2004). [N/R]
County and deputy sheriff to whom a deputy
surrendered his weapon under the terms of an order of protection obtained by
his wife were not liable for his subsequent killing of his wife with another
weapon he allegedly stole from a weapons locker. The Defendants did not have
any special relationship with the wife imposing a duty to protect her under New
York state law. Farley v. County of Erie, 791 N.Y.S.2d 251 (A.D. 4th Dept.
2005). [N/R]
Federal appeals court rejects claim that police
officers violated a man's rights to equal protection by failing to arrest his
former boyfriend, a member of the City Council, following an alleged domestic
disturbance at their home. Lunini v. Grayeb, No. 04-1822, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis
885 (7th Cir.). [2005 LR Mar]
Arrestee's release of city and officers from civil
liability in exchange for dismissal of criminal charges of domestic violence
against her was fully enforceable. Alabama statute prohibiting the crime of
"compounding," punishing agreements offering something of value in
exchange for not seeking prosecution of a crime, did not apply to city
attorney's offer of release agreement. Penn v. City of Montgomery, No.
03-14207, 381 F.3d 1059 (11th Cir. 2004). [2004 LR Dec]
Officer was entitled to qualified immunity for
shooting and killing a husband struggling on the floor with another officer
summoned to the home because of a domestic dispute. Parks v. Pomeroy, No.
03-2043 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 23262 (8th Cir.2004). [2004 LR Dec]
Employer whose drug intoxicated employee shot a
police officer responding to a domestic dispute he was having with his wife was
properly held liable for $800,000 in compensatory and $500,000 in punitive
damages. Evidence showed that supervisors were aware of, and even encouraged,
work crew to use drugs to stay "alert" and awake while repairing
railroad tracks. Loram Maintenance of Way, Inc. v. Ianni, No. 08-02-00049-CV,
141 S.W.3d 722 (Tex. App. 2004). [2004 LR Dec]
Woman's estate could pursue a negligence claim
under Connecticut law against town and police officers for allegedly failing to
protect her and her unborn fetus from being fatally shot by her estranged
boyfriend, who was the father. Court rules that the defendants did not have
tort immunity because the decedents were identifiable persons facing imminent
harm. It was alleged that the officers knew of two prior assaults and a
kidnapping that the boyfriend had perpetrated against the woman, and that the
woman had expressed fear for her life. Florence v. Town of Plainfield, No.
CV-03 00695808, 849 A.2d 7 (Conn. Super. 2004). [N/R]
Woman arrested for alleged violation of a
domestic violence protective order that she claimed she had not yet been served
with could not pursue federal civil rights claim against town when there was no
assertion that any official municipal policy had caused the arrest. The mere
fact that the magistrate who issued the warrant for her arrest, and the sheriff
who supervised the office which allegedly failed to serve her with the
protective order were both municipal employees did not alter the result. Cole
v. Summey, 329 F. Supp. 2d 391 (M.D.N.C. 2004). [N/R]
City could not be held liable for death of wife
shot and killed by her estranged husband while she attempted to retrieve her
belongings from their residence while accompanied by police officers. Officers
had no constitutional duty to protect the wife against violence by the husband
and their presence in the home did not increase or create the danger to her from
him. Simmons v. City of Inkster, #03-72318, 323 F. Supp. 2d 812 (E.D. Mich.
2004). [2004 LR Oct]
Even if employees of the county sheriff's
officers were negligent in failing to arrest a husband before he shot and
wounded his wife, the department was immune from a lawsuit under Mississippi
state law under a statute, A.M.C. Sec. 11-46-9(1)(c) providing that a
government entity is not liable for any claim in the absence of conduct by an
employee acting in "reckless disregard" of the safety of others. The
wife had previously signed a criminal affidavit against her husband for
domestic violence, and a judge signed a warrant for his arrest, but this was
allegedly never delivered to the county sheriff's department prior to the
shooting incident. Collins v. Tallahatchie County, No. 2003-CA-01377-SCT, 876
So. 2d 284 (Miss. 2004). [N/R]
Domestic violence arrestee whose bail was
increased from $50,000 (listed in the county's felony bail schedule) to $1
million based on a request from a deputy sheriff was not entitled to damages on
his claim that this constituted unconstitutionally excessive bail. First, the
bail was not unconstitutionally excessive in violation of the Eighth Amendment,
in light of the injuries the arrestee's alleged victim had suffered. Second,
the deputy, and his supervisor, who approved the request, were entitled to
qualified immunity as there was no clearly established violation of
constitutional rights, and they could reasonably have believed both that there
was a risk of flight by the arrestee and that he posed a danger to his alleged
victim. None of the information they provided to the judicial officer who made
the decision to increase the bail was false. Galen v. County of Los Angeles,
322 F. Supp. 2d 1045 (C.D. Cal. 2004). [N/R]
Wife who was attacked and injured by her husband
when he escaped from the custody of the U.S. Marshals Service after allegedly
violating a domestic violence order of protection could not pursue her lawsuit
against the Marshals Service and U.S. government when she failed to exhaust
available administrative remedies under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28
U.S.C. Sec. 1346, 2671 et seq. She also could not pursue federal civil rights
claims against federal officials under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 in the absence of
any allegation that they acted under color of state law. Cureton v. U.S.
Marshal Service, 322 F. Supp. 2d 23 (D.D.C. 2004). [N/R]
Despite a man's acquittal on a charge of
murdering his spouse, his conviction on charges of domestic violence arising out
of the same facts showed that there was probable cause for his arrest and
prosecution, barring his claim for malicious prosecution. Garrett v. Fisher
Titus Hospital, 318 F. Supp. 2d 562 (N.D. Ohio 2004). [N/R]
Federal appeals court, in case where estranged
husband took and murdered his three minor daughters, in violation of domestic
protection order, rules that such an order, when enforcement is required by a
state statute, creates a property interest protected by the due process clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment. Claims against city for failing to enforce order
are reinstated, but individual officers were entitled to qualified immunity.
Gonzales v. Castle Rock, #01-1053, 366 F.3d 1093 (10th Cir. en banc, 2004).
[2004 LR Sep]
Officers had probable cause to arrest a man's
fiancee for violating a California state statute against the willful infliction
of "corporal injury" on a cohabitant, even if she lacked any
intention to injure him. Both the man and his fiancee admitted to the officers
that she had punctured his ear when trying to restrain him by grabbing his arm
and the officers also observed both the blood on the fiancee's shirt and the
puncture wound on the man's ear. Estrada v. County of Los Angeles, No.
02-56742, 91 Fed. Appx. 28 (9th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
The issues as to whether a husband was falsely
arrested for assault and whether his former wife should have been arrested
instead were already litigated and determined in their dissolution of marriage
proceeding, and the husband therefore was barred by the doctrine of collateral
estoppel from raising and relitigating them again in his lawsuit for false
arrest and malicious prosecution. Law enforcement defendants were entitled to
summary judgment. Riemers v. Anderson, No. 20030317, 680 N.W.2d 280 (N.D.
2004). [N/R]
Officers responding to domestic disturbance
report had probable cause to arrest man for violation of New Jersey state
firearms laws when they found that he possessed a handgun, that the gun was
licensed in another state, and that he was a resident of another state. Bowser
v. Borough of Freehold, #03-3386, 99 Fed. Appx. 401 (3rd Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Montana Supreme Court reinstates $358,000 award
against county sheriff for allegedly failing to protect woman against fatal
shooting by her husband. Sheriff had a duty to protect the wife on the basis of
a special relationship created by a Montana state statute requiring him to
provide a notice of rights and information on community resources to domestic
violence victims, and he allegedly failed to provide such notices or
information during a three year period of responding to domestic violence calls
at the couple's residence. Massee v. Thompson, #03-567, 90 P.3d 394 (Mont.
2004). [2004 LR Aug]
Police officer's conduct in allegedly refusing to
provide a man protection against his ex-girlfriend, a fellow police officer,
following purported threats of physical violence, was "reprehensible"
enough to support an award of punitive damages, but court finds $200,000 jury
award of punitive damages excessive, ordering it reduced to $25,000, while
upholding $2,000 award of compensatory damages. Plaintiff would be granted a
new trial limited solely to the issue of punitive damages if he rejected the
reduction. Stack v. Jaffee, 306 F. Supp. 2d 137 (D. Conn. 2003). [N/R]
Police officers who took away a woman's gun while
investigating a domestic dispute, but later returned it to her when they
thought things were "under control" were not liable to boyfriend she
allegedly shot with the weapon a month later. Court rejects the argument that
the return of the weapon "created" the danger that he would be shot.
The shooting was too remote in time to have been caused by the officers'
actions, and their conduct placed him in "no worse" a position than
he would have been in had they not gotten involved to begin with. Green v. City
of Philadelphia, No. 03-2368, 92 Fed. Appx. 873 (3rd Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Police officers did not violate the rights of a
male homosexual co-habitant of a city councilman by requiring him to leave the
residence under threat of arrest, following the councilman's 911 domestic
violence call, despite the fact that he claimed to own the house and claimed
that the officers also had probable cause to arrest the councilman. The councilman
had a bloody lip at the time, and the co-habitant appeared to be in the process
of packing up his possessions to move out. Since the officers needed to
separate the two men, it was logical for them to ask the co-habitant to leave.
Court also finds that the mere fact that the officers "laughed and made
silly faces" when told that the two men were ending a relationship did not
show that they engaged in discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Lunini v. Grayer, 305 F. Supp. 2d 893 (C.D. Ill. 2004). [N/R]
Deputy sheriffs were entitled to qualified
immunity for examining ex-husband's personal property as he was packing to
leave the home after they served him with a temporary order of protection
obtained by his ex-wife. They acted objectively reasonably in seeking to make
sure that he was not concealing a weapon or some other
"instrumentality" that could have presented a danger to persons
present. Rosen v. County of Suffolk, N.Y., 305 F. Supp. 2d 239 (E.D.N.Y. 2004).
[N/R]
Officers had probable cause to arrest husband for
violating court order of protection based on wife's statements, which they had
no reason to doubt the veracity of. Coyle v. Coyle, 302 F. Supp. 2d 3 (E.D.N.Y.
2004). [N/R]
City was not liable, under Florida law, for man's
shooting of his wife, despite alleged negligent failure of officer to follow-up
on promise to "talk" to the shooter about his alleged threat to her.
Officer's failure to act was not the cause of the injuries, and no special
relationship existed which would waive governmental immunity for the officer's
conduct. City of Ocala v. Graham, No.5D02-3208, 864 So. 2d 473 (Fla. App. Dist.
5 2004). [2004 LR May]
911 operator was not liable for man's murder of
his wife and daughter based on classification of call by daughter as a family
violence situation rather than a child injury in progress call. No violation of
equal protection or due process was shown, and operator was entitled to
qualified immunity. Beltran v. Amador, No. 03-50427, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 7234
(5th Cir. 2004). [2004 LR May]
There was no probable cause to arrest a husband
for violation of a domestic protection order for attending church services at
the same church his wife attended, since that was not prohibited by the order.
Officer who did not read the order or otherwise attempt to ascertain its
contents was not entitled to qualified immunity. Beier v. Lewiston, #02-35516,
354 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2004). [2004 LR Apr]
Factual issues concerning whether officer's
search of man's residence, yard, and barn in an effort to locate a woman
purportedly involved in a domestic dispute with him was justified by exigent
circumstances or the plaintiff's consent barred summary judgment on the basis
of qualified immunity in the man's civil rights lawsuit. Colao v. Mills, 770
N.Y.S.2d 474 (A.D. 3d Dept. 2004). [N/R]
Nebraska Supreme Court overturns $300,000 award
to woman assaulted in her home by a former boyfriend while he was on probation.
No special relationship existed between crime victim and the state which gave
rise to any specific duty to protect her from her former boyfriend. Bartunek v.
State, No. S-02-710, 666 N.W.2d 435 (Neb. 2003). [N/R]
Officers had probable cause to arrest husband for
harassing his wife, even though both husband and wife told the officers that a
scratch on the wife was caused "unintentionally." Evidence that he
had taken something from his wife's hands in a manner that caused injury was
enough for the officers to make an inference that he had an intent to harass or
scare her, and officers, knowing that the husband had been making threats, did
not believe the wife's statements. Shortz v. City of Montgomery, 267 F. Supp.
2d 1124 (M.D. Ala. 2003). [N/R]
Deputy's observation of woman's injuries and
receipt of her sworn statement accusing her boyfriend of assault were
sufficient to provide probable cause for an arrest of her boyfriend, despite
any factual dispute about the woman's credibility. Probable cause for the
arrest precluded claims for both false arrest and malicious prosecution. Thomas
v. County of Putnam, 262 F. Supp. 2d 241 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). [N/R]
Police officers had exigent circumstances
justifying a warrantless entry into the home of a 911 caller and her fiance
when the dispatcher labeled the call as involving a "cutting or
stabbing," and the fiance answered the door with blood on his legs and
boxer shorts, and the caller was not then visible. Alleged handcuffing of
caller for one minute while officers inspected her bruises was not proven, and
plaintiff could not identify which officer purportedly did so. Probable cause
existed for arrest of fiance for domestic violence based on bruises on woman
caller. Thacker v. City of Columbus, No. 01-4097, 328 F.3d 244 (6th Cir. 2003).
[2003 LR Oct]
Police officer's alleged romantic involvement
with victim did not alter a valid restraining order supported by probable cause
into "one that was not," and he was entitled to qualified immunity
for enforcing the order against the plaintiff after the woman who obtained the
order called police about the plaintiff's alleged violation of it. Deen v.
Corning City, No. 01-16705, 66 Fed. Appx. 675 (9th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Georgia Supreme Court holds that, under state
law, a parent of an adult child murdered by his surviving spouse can pursue a
wrongful death claim against the alleged murderer or against "other
parties" that proximately caused the death, answering a question certified
to it by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in a case where the
murdered son's mother asserted state wrongful death claims against the wife, a
police chief, and the city. The claims against the city and police chief were
based on the fact that the alleged murderer was a police captain who had
previously attempted suicide. The police chief had ordered her to remove all
weapons from her home, but did not relieve her of her duties, and she used her
service revolver to shoot and kill her husband. Carringer v. Rodgers, No.
SO2Q1483, 578 S.E.2d 841 (Ga. 2003). [N/R]
A female former police officer failed to
establish a claim for violation of her equal protection rights when there was
no evidence of this other than her "conclusory allegation" that her
arrest for disorderly conduct following a fight with her husband, combined with
the failure to arrest her husband showed differing treatment due to gender.
Additionally, arguable probable cause existed to arrest her and her arrest was
carried out under an arrest warrant. Zandhri v. Dortenzio, 228 F. Supp. 2d 167
(D. Conn. 2002). [N/R]
Wife awarded $30,000 against Tennessee county for
failing to protect her against her estranged husband who allegedly burned her
home when deputies failed to arrest him for violating a protection order while
divorce proceedings were pending. Tennessee statute waiving governmental
immunity for county, however, barred the additional award, by the trial court,
of $130,000 in damages against two deputy sheriff's. Matthews v. Pickett
County, Tennessee, No. 00-6644, 46 Fed. Appx. 261 (6th Cir. 2002). [2003
LR Feb.]
City and police officials were not liable for
officer's action of taking his former wife and others hostage. Officer's
actions were not foreseeable and ex-wife's domestic violence complaints against
officer were "unspecific" and spread over time. One instance of
ignoring a domestic violence complaint, negligently overlooked because of a
heavy workload, did not show a policy or practice of ignoring such complaints
against police officers. Hansell v. City of Atlantic City, No. 01-2908, 46 Fed.
Appx. 665 (3rd Cir. 2002). [2003 LR Jan]
City and officers did not "create" the
danger to three children who were murdered by their father by failing to
enforce a restraining order against him after he abducted them, and therefore
did not violate their substantive due process constitutional rights. Plaintiff
mother did, however, assert a valid possible claim for violation of procedural
due process based on Colorado state statute requiring reasonable efforts to
enforce restraining orders. Gonzales v. City of Castle Rock, No. 01-1053, 307
F.3d 12258 (10th Cir. 2002). [2003 LR Jan]
Untimely processing of paperwork at prosecutor's
office which should have led to the arrest of the complainant's former
boyfriend was not a denial of the complainant's due process right of access to
the courts and did not violate her right to equal protection. Court rejects
argument that liability could be based on prosecutor's alleged failure to train
her staff to give the same priority to domestic violence complaints from
unmarried complainants as complaints involving married complainants. No
liability for subsequent shooting of woman by former boyfriend. Thomas v. City
of Mount Vernon, 215 F. Supp. 2d 329 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). [N/R]
County and police department were not liable for
alleged failure to protect a woman against continued domestic violence by a man
who had previously been arrested on three separate occasions for abusing her.
Plaintiff did not show that the defendants placed her in any greater danger or
that there was any policy of inadequate training on domestic violence. O'Brien
v. Maui County, #00-16571, 37 Fed. Appx. 269 (9th Cir. 2002). [2002 LR Nov]
County and sheriff's department was not liable
for ex-husband's shooting of his ex-wife on the basis of the alleged failure to
serve him with a domestic violence order of protection. State statute creating
a duty to serve such orders in a timely manner did not create a federal claim
for violation of civil rights for alleged failure to do so. Jones v. Union County,
Tennessee, #01-5149, 296 F.3d 417 (6th Cir. 2002). [2002 LR Nov]
A father's murder of his infant daughter was
"too remote" from a sergeant's actions in responding to the mother's
call reporting domestic violence four days earlier to support a claim by the
mother for deprivation of her constitutional rights. Sheets v. Mullins,
#00-4162, 287 F.3d 581 (6th Cir. 2002). [2002 LR Oct]
California Supreme Court rules that county and
sheriff's department were not liable for negligence for failing to protect a
woman from being fatally shot by her ex-husband at a courthouse. The defendants
did not increase the risk of harm to the decedent, and the posting of signs
"warning" persons of the alleged lack of security at the courthouse
would have discouraged litigants from resorting to the courts. Those entering
courthouse were, in any event, aware that persons entering were not screened
for weapons. Zelig v. County of Los Angeles, #S081791, 119 Cal. Rptr. 2d 709,
45 P.3d 1171 (Cal. 2002). [2002 LR Aug]
Officers had probable cause for arresting husband for
criminal contempt and harassment based on wife's written complaint accusing him
of violations of a protective order preventing him from being within 1000 feet
of her. Officers had no reason to doubt the wife's claim that he had in person
threatened to kill her and burn her house down, and one of the officers
indicated that he conducted a personal investigation. Fulton v. Robinson,
#00-9547, 289 F.3d 188 (2nd Cir. 2002). [2002 LR Aug]
Sufficient exigent circumstances existed for
officer to make a warrantless entry into a home to make an arrest when he was
called to the home to investigate a possible domestic dispute, noticed clothing
strewn about the street in front of the residence, and was approached by a
woman with an arm that appeared disfigured who told him that the man inside the
house had broken her arm. Walker v. West Caln Township, 170 F. Supp. 2d 522
(E.D. Pa. 2001). [N/R]
Officers had probable cause, under Michigan law,
to arrest a husband for domestic assault when they encountered his visibly
upset wife, whose finger was bleeding and stated to them that she had told a
911 operator that he had been pushing and grabbing her and the children and had
cut her finger in the course of physically taking the phone from her hand.
Klein v. Long, #00-2235, 275 F.3d 544 (6th Cir. 2001). [N/R]
Officers had probable cause to arrest woman in
responding to domestic violence call, despite her contention that her boyfriend
had hit her and then called the police before she could. Eckert v. Town of
Silverthorne, #00-1030, 258 F.3d 1147 (10th Cir. 2001). [2002 LR Feb]
Police department was not liable for officer's
actions in going to his ex-wife's residence, while on vacation and intoxicated,
shooting into the house, and then taking ex-wife's new husband and his own
children hostage. Plaintiffs did not show that there was a city policy of
ignoring complaints concerning domestic violence by officers. Hansell v. City
of Atlantic City, Civ. A. No. 96-CV-5957, 152 F. Supp. 2d 589 (D.N.J. 2001).
[2002 LR Jan]
South Carolina domestic violence statute did not
impose a duty on the sheriff's department to provide protection to specific
domestic violence victims. Court rejects claim that wife shot and killed by her
husband was used a "bait" to capture her husband. Arthurs v. Aiken
County, No. 25331, 551 S.E.2d 579 (S.C. 2001). [2002 LR Jan]
341:76 UPDATE: $26 million award against city for
failure to protect woman against alleged murder plot by killers hired by her
boyfriend overturned; no city policy alleged increased the danger to her, at
most it left her in the same danger she was already in. Piotrowski v. City of
Houston, No. 98-21032, 237 F.3d 567 (5th Cir. 2001), rehearing & rehearing
en banc denied, 251 F.3d 729 (5th Cir. 2001).
337:5 Family of woman killed by her estranged
husband could assert a claim for violation of equal protection based on alleged
failure to provide police protection because of gender, regardless of whether
they could show that this failure helped cause the murder or indeed caused any
actual harm at all; nominal damages could still be awarded if a constitutional
violation without actual harm was proven. Macias, Estate of, v. Ihde,
#99-15662, 219 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2000).
339:40 Federal appeals court sets forth legal
test for an equal protection claim based on unequal protection given to victims
of domestic violence, while holding that sheriffs and deputies were entitled to
qualified immunity from liability for failure to prevent husband's abduction,
rape, and shooting of his estranged wife, since the law was not previously
"clearly established" on the subject; possible alternate ground for
liability, however, might be based on ill-will towards victim as a "class
of one." Shipp v. McMahon, #98-31317, 234 F.3d 907 (5th Cir. 2000).
335:168 Police officers who forcibly broke down
the door to a man's apartment without a warrant and entered to arrest him for
domestic battery were entitled to qualified immunity; even though the facts did
not adequately indicate the existence of exigent circumstances justifying a
warrantless entry, they could reasonably have thought it did, based on a 911
call by a woman in the apartment which was twice disconnected. Sanders v.
Marovich, 102 F.Supp. 2d 926 (N.D. Ill. 2000).
326:24 Officer did not violate clearly
established rights of husband by insisting, correctly, on estranged wife's
right, under Florida law, to assistance in entering jointly owned home, from
which she had been excluded by husband, in order to recover medications and
other personal items. Montague v. Cooley, 735 So. 2d 511 (Fla. App. 1999).
326:26 Detective exercised his discretion by
deciding not to pursue investigation of alleged domestic violence until the following
morning; city was not liable for facially neutral domestic violence policy when
it could not be shown that woman, shot and killed by her ex-husband, had been
treated differently than male victims of domestic violence. Williams v. City of
Montgomery, Alabama, 48 F.Supp. 2d 1317 (M.D. Ala. 1999).
327:37 Officer who left the scene after helping
man retrieve his radio from ex-girlfriend's auto was not liable for subsequent
alleged assault man committed on ex- girlfriend; no liability for inadequate training
in absence of a showing of deliberate indifference. Soltis v. Kotenski, 63
F.Supp. 2d 187 (D. Conn. 1999).
323:173 California appeals court rules that
governmental immunity did not apply to failure to provide metal detectors in
courthouse; surviving family of woman killed by her ex-husband in courthouse
lobby could possibly sue county for failure to protect her against foreseeable
risk of violence. Zelig v. County of Los Angeles, 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 693 (Cal. App.
1999).
323:166 County could be liable for burning down
of woman's house after officers failed to arrest her ex- husband who had
allegedly just threatened to kill her in violation of a court order of
protection; Tennessee Supreme Court finds that such orders impose a special
duty to provide protection if relied upon, and that duty extends to protecting
property. Matthews v. Pickett County, 996 S.W.2d 162 (Tenn. 1999).
323:165 Police officers and city could be liable
for violation of equal protection for failing to take immediate action at
residence to which officers were summoned because of domestic disturbance;
officers allegedly waited forty minutes before making forced entry into home,
during which time husband allegedly fatally stabbed wife. Didzerekis v.
Stewart, 41 F.Supp. 2d 840 (N.D. Ill. 1999).
320:119 Officers were not entitled to qualified
immunity for failure to make forced entry into woman's apartment after she made
9-1-1 call reporting her husband's attempt to murder her. Didzerekis v.
Stewart, 41 F.Supp. 2d 840 (N.D. Ill. 1999).
320:118 Federal appeals court rules that giving
domestic violence 9-1-1 calls lower priority than other 9-1-1 calls may
constitute an equal protection claim; finds that trial court did not adequately
explore whether such a policy existed or whether it was rationally based.
Fajardo v. County of Los Angeles, #96-55699, 179 F.3d 698 (9th Cir. 1999).
309:133 Officer did not violate "clearly
established" rights of ex-husband when ordering him to leave ex-wife's
apartment under threat of arrest when ex-wife was only name on lease and she
accused him of serious physical abuse; officer was entitled to qualified
immunity despite fact that ex-husband lived there and ex-wife had not informed
him that his name would not be on new lease she entered into. Miller v.
Compton, 122 F.3d 1094 (8th Cir. 1997).
308:125 Police chief's alleged failure to
investigate minor females' charges that their father sexually abused them did
not lead to federal civil rights liability, in absence
of proof that he took this action with intent to
discriminate against them as females, minors, or victims of domestic abuse.
Hayden v. Grayson, 134 F.3d 449 (1st Cir. 1998).
290:28 Michigan Supreme Court rules that police
officer who arrived on scene of domestic disturbance in response to neighbors'
911 phone calls, but allegedly did not attempt to contact woman who neighbors
stated had been attacked by her husband, was not liable for woman's death three
hours later; no special relationship, imposing a duty of protection, existed
between decedent and officer, as there was no direct contact between them White
v. Beasley, 552 NW2d 1 (Mich 1996).
296:116 Officers not liable for failure to arrest
woman's husband for domestic abuse and his subsequent murder of her two
children; even if officer's statement to husband revealing that wife had
complained about him put the children in increased danger, there was no
"clearly established" constitutional right violated, entitling
officer to qualified immunity; appeals court also finds insufficient evidence
of intentional gender discrimination to support equal protection claim Soto v.
Flores, 103 F.3d 1056 (1st Cir. 1997).
298:152 Officers were entitled to qualified
immunity from liability on woman's claim that they were responsible for her ex-
boyfriend's assault because they informed him two months earlier that her
parking lot was under surveillance, thereby allegedly allowing him to avoid
possible earlier arrest for vandalizing her auto and enhancing risk he would assault
her Cook v. City of Groton, 952 F.Supp. 101 (D.Conn 1997).
277:6 Police officer and Police Superintendent
were not liable for husband's murder of his two children after his wife went to
police station to report that he had assaulted her; failure to arrest husband
did not cause children's murder and evidence was insufficient to show a policy
of denying protection to female victims of domestic violence Soto v.
Carrasquillo, 878 F.Supp. 324 (D.Puerto Rico 1995).
279:37 City had a "special relationship"
with female police officer ultimately shot and killed by her police officer
husband after he repeatedly threatened to kill her, violated orders of
protection, and she complained of these incidents to supervisory officials in
the police department Sadrud-Din v. City of Chicago, 883 F.Supp. 270 (N.D.Ill.
1995). [Cross-reference: Governmental Liability: Policy/Custom]
281:72 County denied summary judgment on claim
that its policy for handling complaints of domestic violence by its deputies
was different from policy stated in sheriff's department manual; suit against
county based on deputy's shooting and killing of his ex-wife to proceed;
"conspiracy" claim dismissed, however Rideau v. Jefferson County, 899
F.Supp. 298 (E.D. Tex. 1995).
282:89 County could be sued for violation of
equal protection for allegedly failing to provide adequate response to
complaints by woman and her 12-year-old daughter of domestic violence;
12-year-old daughter had "domestic" relationship with 16-year-old
boyfriend who sometimes slept in her bed at home and subsequently killed her;
individual officers, however, were entitled to qualified immunity because of
lack of "clearly established" case law concerning equal protection
claims of domestic violence victims Hakken v. Washtenaw County, 901 F.Supp.
1245 (E.D. Mich 1995). [Cross-reference: Defenses: Qualified (Good-Faith).
Immunity]
284:117 Federal appeals court rules that evidence
that 911 dispatchers treated domestic violence calls differently from other
calls could be sufficient to show a county policy or custom regarding domestic
violence which violated the right to equal protection of law; court reinstates
lawsuit over estranged husband killing wife and four others after she made a
911 call which did not result in dispatch of police vehicle Navarro v. Block,
72 F.3d 712 (9th Cir. 1995). [Cross-reference: Governmental Liability: Policy/
Custom]
285:135 Update: Federal appeals court, rehearing
case en banc, rules that officer was entitled to qualified immunity in case
where he allegedly assured woman that her ex-boyfriend would remain in custody
overnight, but then charged ex-boyfriend with minor charges resulting in his
immediate release and return to home to set fire that killed her three
children; right to protection in these circumstances was not "clearly
established" Pinder v. Johnson, 54 F.3d 1169 (4th Cir. 1995). [Cross-
reference: Defenses: Qualified (Good-Faith). Immunity]
286:151 Officer was entitled to qualified
immunity for failing to gather evidence or aggressively investigate case in
which woman stated she was held captive by estranged boyfriend for two days and
repeatedly raped and physically abused; no "clearly established" law
gave woman constitutional right to "quality investigation" of incident
or to have officer "investigate a domestic assault as aggressively"
as they might any other type of assault Lawson v. Garcia, 912 P.2d 1136 (Wyo
1996). [Cross-reference: Defenses: Qualified (Good-Faith). Immunity]
266:22 Estate of woman killed by her husband
after she had reported husband's abusive acts to police five times can sue city
on allegation that it had a policy of treating domestic violence assaults
differently than other assaults Cellini v. City of Sterling Heights, 856
F.Supp. 1215 (E.D. Mich 1994).
267:39 Officers' failure to previously arrest
husband for reported acts of harassment did not cause his later kidnapping and
rape of estranged wife and murder of her mother; federal appeals court also
rules that statistics showing that fewer arrests were made in domestic abuse
cases than non-domestic cases did not establish an equal protection violation
based on gender discrimination Ricketts v. City of Columbia, Missouri, 36 F.3d
775 (8th Cir. 1994).
268:59 Allegation that officer declined to break
into apartment to rescue minor girl from intruder who was raping her, despite
her mother's pleas to do so, because he did not want to be liable for property
damage stated claim against officer for willful and wanton negligence, intentional
infliction of emotional distress, and gender discrimination Doe v. Calumet
City, 161 Ill 2d 374, 641 N.E.2d 498 (1994).
271:101 Officer could be sued on allegation that
he assured woman that her ex-boyfriend, who had threatened the life of her and
her children, would be held in custody overnight, but that he then charged
boyfriend with only minor offenses which led to his immediate release and his
return to woman's home where he set fire which led to all three children's
deaths Pinder v. Johnson, 33 F.3d 368 (4th Cir. 1994).
274:149 City was not liable for stabbing of woman
by estranged boyfriend who escaped from officer attempting to arrest him
pursuant to warrant for violating "no contact" judicial order Hameed
v. Brown, 530 NW2d 703 (Iowa 1995).
275:169 Illinois domestic violence statute
creates a "special duty" to provide protection for persons possessing
a court issued order of protection; law enforcement officers may be held liable
for willful and wanton failure to provide such protection Calloway v.
Kinkelaar, 633 N.E.2d 1380 (Ill App. 1994).
275:171 Police department liable for $594,480 to
surviving family of man shot and killed by off-duty officer angry that he was
having an affair with officer's wife; suit claimed that department knew that
officer had previously, while off-duty, beaten his own wife, but failed to take
preventative measures to stem officer's "violent propensities" Thomas
v. Los Angeles Police Department, No BC086856, LA Superior Court Glendale, May
18, 1995, reported in Los Ang. Daily Jour. (Verd. & Stl.), page 4, June 16,
1995
Nebraska Supreme Court upholds dismissal of suit
against city and officer by woman beaten again by her ex-husband after officer
called to the scene allegedly assured her that he would be in the area to
protect her; officer did not allegedly tell her it was safe to remain at home
and complaint did not allege where else she might have gone Hamilton v. City of
Omaha, 243 Neb 253, 498 N.W.2d 555 (1993).
City liable for $12 million for abduction and
rape of wife by estranged husband and his murder of wife's mother; suit alleged
that city had an official policy of providing less protection to domestic
violence victims than to other crime victims Ricketts v. City of Columbia, Mo,
No 90-4099-CV-C-66BA, U.S. Dist. Ct., WD Mo, 7 Missouri Lawyers Weekly, No 14,
p. 1-16 (April 5, 1993).
Estate of woman beaten to death by her husband
could not recover damages against city because of the failure of its officer to
file written reports of earlier incidents of suspected domestic violence by the
husband; failure to file reports could not reasonably be found to be the
proximate cause of the death, Alabama Supreme Court rules Thetford v. City of
Clanton, 605 So.2d 835 (Ala 1992).
Plaintiff claims that police violated her rights
by failure to arrest her husband in response to numerous complaints that he
violated court protective orders and that his resulted in her husband stabbing
her thirty-three times; court assesses possible liability of individual
officers, granting some officers dismissal or qualified immunity, while denying
it to others Eagleston v. County of Suffolk, 790 F.Supp. 416 (E.D.N.Y. 1992).
Washington state statute created a mandatory duty
for police to arrest an abusive boyfriend or spouse if he was present, but
officers were not liable for boyfriend's later deadly stabbing attack on woman
when he was not present to be arrested when they arrived on the scene, and
woman declined their offer to take her to a shelter Donaldson v. City of
Seattle, 829 P.2d 1125 (Wash App. 1992).
Officers' failure to arrest woman's ex-boyfriend
on battery warrant did not make them liable for his later shooting of her and
her relatives when they voluntarily came into personal contact with the ex-boyfriend
Mack v. City of Monroe, 595 So.2d 353 (La App. 1992). City and police officers
were not immune from suit by domestic violence victim based on alleged
year-long failure to enforce Washington state domestic violence act; statute
provided immunity for good-faith actions, but not for failure to act Roy v.
City of Everett, 823 P.2d 1084 (Wash 1992).
Sheriff could not be held vicariously liable for
his deputies' acts or omissions in failing to prevent estranged husband's
stabbing to death of his wife; domestic protection order under New York state
law did not, by itself, establish a special duty to protect the wife, but might
when combined with officers' knowledge of order and a possible violation
Berliner v. Thompson, 578 N.Y.S.2d 687 (A.D. 1992).
Police officers had a duty to protect woman from
her abusive husband because of court's protective order, but acted reasonably
under the circumstances, when woman herself failed to report several incidents
in which she was abducted Siddle v. City of Cambridge, Ohio, 761 F.Supp. 503
(S.D.Ohio 1991).
City might be liable for failing to arrest
husband before he killed his wife, if wife justifiably relied on police to
obtain and execute an arrest warrant Berliner v. Thompson, 569 N.Y.S.2d 777
(A.D. 1991).
Properly served domestic violence protective
order created a constitutionally protected property interest in police
protection; abused spouse could sue police department for due process violation
Coffman v. Wilson Police Dept, 739 F.Supp. 257 (E.D. Pa 1990).
Town liable for $275,000 for failure to protect
woman against assault by her estranged husband, who shot her and her boyfriend
and killed her six-year-old son; wrongful death award of $250,000 for the
child's death, however, was excessive Raucci v. Town of Rotterdam, 902 F.2d
1050 (2nd Cir. 1990).
Surviving family of woman killed by ex-boyfriend
when she returned to crime scene while accompanied by police awarded $106
million for negligence Velez v. City of New York, 556 N.Y.S.2d 537 (A.D. 1990).
Estate of wife shot by her estranged husband -- a
deputy sheriff -- granted new trial on question of whether she had relied to
her detriment on Sheriff's promise to protect her against spousal violence
Braswell v. Braswell, 390 S.E.2d 752 (N.C. App. 1990).
City could be sued for civil rights violation on
basis of statistical evidence showing lower level of police response to female
victims of domestic violence Hynson v. City of Chester, 731 F.Supp. 1236 (E.D.
Pa 1990).
Police department not liable for failing to send
police escort home with husband who reported that his wife threatened to kill
him there Nichols v. Nichols, 556 So.2d 876 (La App. 1990).
Husband's request to officer to accompany him to
house where his wife was in bed with another man did not create a duty for
officer to protect wife from harm Zeagler v. Town of Jena, 556 So.2d 978 (La
App. 1990).
Police officer's failure to arrest ex-husband who
allegedly raped woman was a discretionary act; neither officer or city was
liable for failure to protect Howell v. City of Catoosa, 729 F.Supp. 1308
(N.D.Okl 1990). Woman stabbed by boyfriend after police answered domestic
violence call but did not arrest him did not show equal protection violation
McKee v. City of Rockwall, Tex, 877 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1989).
Police officers have qualified immunity from
equal protection claims when carrying out departmental domestic violence policy
without overt gender discrimination Hynson v. City of Chester, 864 F.2d 1024
(3d Cir. 1988).
City not liable for failure to protect children
who were potential witnesses in sexual abuse case from murder by their father
Coleman v. Cooper, 366 S.E.2d 2 (N.C. App. 1988).
Sheriff's deputy not liable for removing children
from parents' home without court order after investigation of sex abuse report
Whitcomb v. Jefferson County Dept of Social Serv, 685 F.Supp. 745 (D.Colo
1987), reported in 1988
Tenth circuit federal appeals court allows
plaintiff to bring equal protection civil rights action over alleged failure to
protect against domestic violence Watson v. City of Kansas City, 857 F.2d 690
(10th Cir. 1988).
Ninth circuit court of appeals reinstates lawsuit
claiming failure to protect woman against beating by husband Balisteri v.
Pacifica Police Dept, 855 F.2d 1421 (9th Cir. 1988).