Police May Not Be Entitled to Governmental Immunity Should They Perform a Mental Health Seizure Without Probable Cause
In Rudolph v. Babinec, 939 F.3d 742 (6th Cir. 2019), the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court's denial of summary judgment to law enforcement officers on the basis of qualified immunity after they were sued by the plaintiff who alleged that her Fourth Amendment rights had been violated during a mental health seizure and that the officers' use of force was not objectively reasonable. Police brought the plaintiff for mental health evaluation against her will and argued that circumstances led them to believe she was at risk for suicide. The Sixth Circuit noted that a jury might reasonably determine that the officers lacked probable cause to believe that the plaintiff posed a threat to herself or others, the established legal standard on which mental health seizures were made.
Facts of the Case
Laticia Rudolph was visited at home by her ex-husband Kyle Rudolph after he received a text message from their son stating, “[S]he has the .22 [firearm] out, will you go over there?” (Rudolph, p 748). Mr. and Ms. Rudolph spoke for nearly an hour before she retired to bed; Mr. Rudolph left the home with the .22 firearm (having obtained Ms. Rudolph's agreement to do so). Later that evening, Mr. Rudolph was stopped by police for speeding. During the stop he explained he was in possession of the firearm out of concern for his ex-wife. He showed officers the aforementioned text message as well as another message from Ms. Rudolph that read “good bye.” The officers then performed a wellness check on Ms. Rudolph based on their sense that this was necessary.
By the time officers arrived at her home sometime after 3 a.m., she did not answer to their banging on the door and Mr. Rudolph was asked to call Ms. Rudolph to wake her. After she opened the door, the officers asked whether she was suicidal, and Ms. Rudolph denied this. Ms. Rudolph cooperated and the officers then discussed her having a mental health evaluation, but indicated she could choose either to go voluntarily or be taken into custody for this purpose.
Ms. Rudolph was forcibly placed in handcuffs that she alleged were too tight and, per her report, was “manhandled” out of her house, leaving her to stumble and injure her ankle so badly that it would later need surgery. She was taken to the hospital where her blood alcohol level was found to be 0.153 percent. When sober, she was evaluated and released by the staff physician, who deemed her to be at “extremely low risk for self-harm” (Rudolph, p 746). Ms. Rudolph later sued the arresting officers, citing various constitutional and state law violations. The District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids denied the officers' motion for summary judgment pertaining to their right to qualified immunity under the law. Such immunity protects government officials from personal liability in performing their functions, unless the plaintiff can show that the official violated a person's right, about which a reasonable person similarly situated would have known. The officers appealed this decision to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the court reviewed the appeal with inferences about the facts being drawn from Ms. Rudolph's account.
Ruling and Reasoning
The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to deny summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity with respect to Mr. Rudolph's claims of violation of her Fourth Amendment rights in an unlawful mental health seizure. In examining the basis on which a mental health seizure might be legally executed, the court noted the precedent of probable cause wherein an officer must observe circumstances suggesting a probable or substantial chance for harm to self or others. The Sixth Circuit distinguished the actions leading to the wellness check from the actions involved in carrying out the mental health seizure. The court turned to the case of Fisher v. Harden, 398 F.3d 837 (6th Cir. 2005), in which a third party called police with concern that a man was tying himself to railroad tracks in an apparent suicide attempt. When police responded to the scene, they found a man wearing hunting attire and carrying a rifle who was not tied to the railroad tracks. He was compliant with police and showed “no other suspicious or threatening behavior” (Rudolph, p 747, referencing Fisher, pp 843–4). Despite the third party's concern, no evidence for an impending suicide attempt was found and no seizure was executed. The Sixth Circuit stated that the review of the seizure also considers whether a reasonable officer would question the merits of the suicide report based on what facts are gleaned during the wellness check.
The court concluded that the overall circumstances were potentially insufficient to justify the seizure, and thus the case warranted a jury review and denial of summary judgment for the officers. Specifically, the court reasoned that Ms. Rudolph's intoxication and text to her son were not sufficient so as to provide probable cause for mental health seizure once they performed the wellness check, given the totality of information. The court also noted the uncertainty in the facts surrounding whether Mr. Rudolph explicitly voiced concern that his ex-wife might attempt suicide, and found it irregular that he did not seek police assistance but rather expressed his concern for Ms. Rudolph only after he himself was involved in a traffic stop. The court contrasted this situation with the case of Monday v. Oullette, 118 F.3d 1099 (6th Cir. 1997), in which a third-party alleged that the plaintiff, recently divorced, was at risk for suicide after having ingested pills with alcohol. When summoned, police found the plaintiff intoxicated and several pills missing from his supply of prescription medication. Despite the plaintiff's denial that he had attempted to die by suicide, the officers elected to execute a mental health seizure based on the available evidence. In the present case, the court noted that Ms. Rudolph had stated she was sleeping when she did not respond to the calls. Although she was observed to be intoxicated, she reported she had been merely cleaning the gun earlier before it was taken by Mr. Rudolph. There was no other questioning by the officers about suicide attempts or why her son was concerned, nor was a breathalyzer test performed to assess her intoxication level. Also, any potential for self-harm was further mitigated with the removal of the firearm from the home. It further noted that the officers essentially made their determination for her seizure based on her intoxication as supporting her ex-husband's claim that she was suicidal. It further noted that the officers had no duty to intervene on legal grounds, even though mental health seizure laws might support their doing so. The court recognized nevertheless that any intervention would then necessitate constitutional protections such as a probable cause determination. The court determined that a jury might reasonably find the officers lacked the probable cause to seize Ms. Rudolph, and by this reasoning upheld the district court's denial of summary judgment sought by the officers.
With regard to her handcuffing and claims of excessive use of force, Ms. Rudolph had photos of injuries and gave accounts that broadly differed from those of the officers; interpreted in the light most favorable to Ms. Rudolph, the court found that the officers were not entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity. Regarding an additional claim of violation of state law, the court ruled in favor of the officers because the claim required Ms. Rudolph to demonstrate that the officers acted with reckless indifference, and she did not produce that evidence.
Dissent
In his dissent, Judge Thapar asked whether the officers acted in “plain incompetence” in bringing Ms. Rudolph to the hospital for evaluation. He concluded the officers who seized Ms. Rudolph were entitled to governmental immunity, as their actions were not grossly unlawful even if they had “err[ed] on the side of caution” (Rudolph, p 753).
Discussion
This case concerns what for many people may be the initial interruption in their constitutional rights in the context of mental illness, i.e., involuntary seizure by police to undergo psychiatric evaluation. Seizure offers the possibility of evaluation and subsequent treatment for those whose degree of mental illness might endanger themselves or others, and whose poor insight might otherwise preclude contact with mental health services. The legal standard upon which a seizure might be performed is a matter of crucial importance, with public and psychiatric ramifications. Rudolph asks how law enforcement officers operating with limited evidence should discern probable cause for seizure when compromised safety of the individual or others is suspected.
What evidence might give rise to probable cause? The factors by which probable cause might be determined include: the source by which the matter is brought to police attention; the subject's prior history of mental illness and present state and environment, as witnessed by police; the subject's own explanation of recent events; and the acute potential for harm to self or others. Officers in the field will necessarily lack much of this information, but every effort should be made to gather it.
Although it is not the role of law enforcement officers to make diagnoses, they are nonetheless important ancillary members in the state's mission of caring for those with mental illness. At the time of this writing, the roles and responsibilities of law enforcement in handling community needs is subject to much scrutiny. There is a trend to encourage increased responses to mental health crises by social service personnel. Nevertheless, the psychiatric community should consider collaborative strategies to foster opportunities for law enforcement officers to be trained adequately in the recognition of mental illness, basic facts about suicide, the legal provisions that allow for transport to sites where psychiatric evaluation can take place, and techniques to transport individuals safely without excessive use of force. Such training could help officers determine the appropriate disposition of persons suspected of exhibiting symptoms of mental illness to the degree that safety is threatened, and may also help prevent unnecessary or unlawful detention and injury.
- © 2020 American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law