fbpx

Court Rules On LEOs’ Legal Duty To Bring Delusional Subjects To Medical Care

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

A U.S. Court of Appeals has ruled that LEOs have no obligation to transport delusional subjects to a hospital instead of to jail in the absence of evidence of special medical risks.

A three-judge panel in the 6th appellate circuit last month reversed a lower court that had denied qualified immunity and summary judgment to officers and jailers in the in-custody death of an off-his-meds suspect with bipolar disorder.

“[T]here was no violation of a clearly established constitutional right,” the panel ruled, “and the officers did not act with the recklessness that would permit them to be liable….” The court’s jurisdiction covers Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee.

DELUSIONS

The case involved a federal civil rights suit and state claims brought by the dead man’s mother, who was with him when he was arrested for disturbing the peace at a big-box hardware store in Bedford Heights, OH. She’d brought him there to collect his last paycheck after he’d been fired for skipping work. When a delay developed, the subject began “kicking and throwing paint cans” and “talking a lot of gibberish.”

Officers responding to a 911 call patted him down and discovered a container of pills in his pocket. The subject and his mother both stated that these were for his bipolar condition and that he had “not taken his medication for days or weeks.”

According to an officer’s later testimony, the suspect was “rambling and ranting and raving about every possible topic.” Among other things, he claimed that he sold “$5,000 gloves” to local stores, that he had a “million-dollar cell phone,” that he made “lots of money” with internet businesses, that he was a state trooper, and that his father was “the son of Satan.”

His bizarre and agitated monologue continued after an officer delivered him to jail. Correctional officers removed his handcuffs and belt and segregated him in an interview room to chill out so he could be booked.

During some eight hours’ detention, he did calm down “from time to time”—enough to be fed (despite having a spoon, he “ate with his hands and spilled food all over himself”) and to answer some “medical screening” questions (he denied having any “psychiatric issue”).

Then during one of the lulls in his “unusual behavior,” a correctional officer let him out of the room without handcuffs so he could make a phone call to arrange bail.

“Without warning,” the appellate panel noted, the suspect threw the officer “to the floor and began choking him.” Another officer jumped on the man’s back and he “started choking her too.” Cops rushed into the jail and pulled him into a restraint chair.

At that point, an administrator “noticed something wrong.” Someone took the subject’s pulse: weak. Resuscitation attempts failed. He was sped by emergency rescue squad to the hospital, where he was pronounced dead. An autopsy showed that he “died as a result of a sudden cardiac event during a physical altercation in association with bipolar disease.”

JUDICIAL THINKING

A subsequent civil suit by the suspect’s mother alleged that officers and their agency were liable for the fatality because of their “negligence,” “deliberate indifference,” and “lack of adequate training.” A federal district judge denied defense motions to dismiss the case on grounds of qualified immunity. The Appeals Court panel determined that to be a reversible error.

The Court acknowledged that a detainee has a constitutional right to “medical treatment for a serious medical need. But given the particulars of this case, the panel explained, there is no precedent that “clearly required [the officers at the initial scene] to do more than what they did—collect [the subject’s] pills, note his aggressive behavior and [that he] was bipolar and off his medications, and inform the jailers….

“In short, no clearly established law, here or anywhere else from what we’ve seen, required the arresting officers to drive [the suspect] to a hospital rather than the jail under these circumstances.”

At the jail, the appellate judges stated, nothing “alerted the [correctional] officers that mental instability of this sort required immediate medical attention…. [The subject] did not demonstrate any suicidal tendencies…and he did not have any apparent risk of seizures…. For that matter there was nothing to suggest he was at risk of the heart attack that ended up killing him.”

Like the cops in the field, the jailers were not obligated “to do more than what they did: They kept him in seclusion for everyone’s safety, waited until he was calm to feed him and book him, asked him about any psychiatric diagnoses during the medical screening….

“From the arrest to the initial detention to the booking to the attack, each officer treated [the subject] respectfully and carefully in light of his behavior and mental condition…. None had reason to believe he was suffering more than a typical arrestee [or that] he was so delusional that he would act out dangerously, much less die of a heart attack….”

In conclusion, the panel noted, “Police officers face tough judgment calls about what to do with the mentally ill. Arrestees do not normally arrive at jail toting their medical records. Psychiatric problems do not always manifest themselves with clarity. And not even clear psychiatric problems always reveal their potential for serious harm—as here a heart attack.

“Perhaps those truths counsel in favor of more policies and training designed to minimize tragic injuries and deaths…. And perhaps police would be wise to err on the side of calling a doctor in cases like this one.” But that said, no constitutional or state law violations warranted money damages against the officers or their agency, the Court declared.

The case, Anita Arrington-Bey v. City of Bedford Heights, can be accessed in full by clicking here.

For a thorough explanation of guidelines from the US Supreme Court on when lower courts should grant qualified immunity, see this new article from the Americans for Effective Law Enforcement Monthly Law Journal. Click here to read it.

Our thanks to Atty. Michael Brave of LAAW International, LLC, for alerting us to the Ohio case.

Leave a Reply

GDPR

  • Privacy Policy

Privacy Policy

Effective date: January 06, 2019

Force Science Institute, Ltd. (“us”, “we”, or “our”) operates the https://www.forcescience.org/ website (hereinafter referred to as the “Service”).

This page informs you of our policies regarding the collection, use, and disclosure of personal data when you use our Service and the choices you have associated with that data. Our Privacy Policy for Force Science Institute, Ltd. is based on the Privacy Policy Template from Privacy Policies.

We use your data to provide and improve the Service. By using the Service, you agree to the collection and use of information in accordance with this policy. Unless otherwise defined in this Privacy Policy, the terms used in this Privacy Policy have the same meanings as in our Terms and Conditions, accessible from https://www.forcescience.org/

Information Collection And Use

We collect several different types of information for various purposes to provide and improve our Service to you.

Types of Data Collected

Personal Data

While using our Service, we may ask you to provide us with certain personally identifiable information that can be used to contact or identify you (“Personal Data”). Personally identifiable information may include, but is not limited to:

  • Email address
  • First name and last name
  • Phone number
  • Address, State, Province, ZIP/Postal code, City
  • Cookies and Usage Data

Usage Data

We may also collect information on how the Service is accessed and used (“Usage Data”). This Usage Data may include information such as your computer’s Internet Protocol address (e.g. IP address), browser type, browser version, the pages of our Service that you visit, the time and date of your visit, the time spent on those pages, unique device identifiers and other diagnostic data.

Tracking & Cookies Data

We use cookies and similar tracking technologies to track the activity on our Service and hold certain information.

Cookies are files with small amount of data which may include an anonymous unique identifier. Cookies are sent to your browser from a website and stored on your device. Tracking technologies also used are beacons, tags, and scripts to collect and track information and to improve and analyze our Service.

You can instruct your browser to refuse all cookies or to indicate when a cookie is being sent. However, if you do not accept cookies, you may not be able to use some portions of our Service. You can learn more how to manage cookies in the Browser Cookies Guide.

Examples of Cookies we use:

  • Session Cookies. We use Session Cookies to operate our Service.
  • Preference Cookies. We use Preference Cookies to remember your preferences and various settings.
  • Security Cookies. We use Security Cookies for security purposes.

Use of Data

Force Science Institute, Ltd. uses the collected data for various purposes:

  • To provide and maintain the Service
  • To notify you about changes to our Service
  • To allow you to participate in interactive features of our Service when you choose to do so
  • To provide customer care and support
  • To provide analysis or valuable information so that we can improve the Service
  • To monitor the usage of the Service
  • To detect, prevent and address technical issues

Transfer Of Data

Your information, including Personal Data, may be transferred to — and maintained on — computers located outside of your state, province, country or other governmental jurisdiction where the data protection laws may differ than those from your jurisdiction.

If you are located outside United States and choose to provide information to us, please note that we transfer the data, including Personal Data, to United States and process it there.

Your consent to this Privacy Policy followed by your submission of such information represents your agreement to that transfer.

Force Science Institute, Ltd. will take all steps reasonably necessary to ensure that your data is treated securely and in accordance with this Privacy Policy and no transfer of your Personal Data will take place to an organization or a country unless there are adequate controls in place including the security of your data and other personal information.

Disclosure Of Data

Legal Requirements

Force Science Institute, Ltd. may disclose your Personal Data in the good faith belief that such action is necessary to:

  • To comply with a legal obligation
  • To protect and defend the rights or property of Force Science Institute, Ltd.
  • To prevent or investigate possible wrongdoing in connection with the Service
  • To protect the personal safety of users of the Service or the public
  • To protect against legal liability

Security Of Data

The security of your data is important to us, but remember that no method of transmission over the Internet, or method of electronic storage is 100% secure. While we strive to use commercially acceptable means to protect your Personal Data, we cannot guarantee its absolute security.

Service Providers

We may employ third party companies and individuals to facilitate our Service (“Service Providers”), to provide the Service on our behalf, to perform Service-related services or to assist us in analyzing how our Service is used.

These third parties have access to your Personal Data only to perform these tasks on our behalf and are obligated not to disclose or use it for any other purpose.

Analytics

We may use third-party Service Providers to monitor and analyze the use of our Service.

  • Google AnalyticsGoogle Analytics is a web analytics service offered by Google that tracks and reports website traffic. Google uses the data collected to track and monitor the use of our Service. This data is shared with other Google services. Google may use the collected data to contextualize and personalize the ads of its own advertising network.You can opt-out of having made your activity on the Service available to Google Analytics by installing the Google Analytics opt-out browser add-on. The add-on prevents the Google Analytics JavaScript (ga.js, analytics.js, and dc.js) from sharing information with Google Analytics about visits activity.For more information on the privacy practices of Google, please visit the Google Privacy & Terms web page: https://policies.google.com/privacy?hl=en

Links To Other Sites

Our Service may contain links to other sites that are not operated by us. If you click on a third party link, you will be directed to that third party’s site. We strongly advise you to review the Privacy Policy of every site you visit.

We have no control over and assume no responsibility for the content, privacy policies or practices of any third party sites or services.

Children’s Privacy

Our Service does not address anyone under the age of 18 (“Children”).

We do not knowingly collect personally identifiable information from anyone under the age of 18. If you are a parent or guardian and you are aware that your Children has provided us with Personal Data, please contact us. If we become aware that we have collected Personal Data from children without verification of parental consent, we take steps to remove that information from our servers.

Changes To This Privacy Policy

We may update our Privacy Policy from time to time. We will notify you of any changes by posting the new Privacy Policy on this page.

We will let you know via email and/or a prominent notice on our Service, prior to the change becoming effective and update the “effective date” at the top of this Privacy Policy.

You are advised to review this Privacy Policy periodically for any changes. Changes to this Privacy Policy are effective when they are posted on this page.

Contact Us

If you have any questions about this Privacy Policy, please contact us:

  • By email: support@forcescience.org
  • By visiting this page on our website: https://www.forcescience.org/contact
  • By phone number: 866-683-1944
  • By mail: Force Science Institute, Ltd.