Protective Custody for Mental Health Evaluation and Treatment

Facts of the Case

On August 9, 2018, Officer Johns, while on patrol, received a call that someone, who was standing on the side of the road, appeared to be hallucinating. Officer Johns arrived on the scene and identified the person to be Gregory Wade Towner Sr., from prior interactions he had with Mr. Towner. He testified Mr. Towner was yelling and screaming at the sky and making “very aggressive actions” toward the air as if he were arguing with somebody, but no one else was present. When Officer Johns approached Mr. Towner, Mr. Towner expressed he felt depressed, stated he had been off his medications, and suggested he might want to go to the hospital. Mr. Towner also made a statement regarding invisible wires covering him that would “send [him] to hell.” He denied suicidal and homicidal ideation. Officer Johns asked him if he wanted to go to the hospital, and Mr. Towner said “sure.”

As Officer Johns and Mr. Towner walked toward the patrol car, Mr. Towner indicated he did not want to go to the hospital and needed to get his truck. He stated he needed a ride to the shop and then called someone. Mr. Towner asked Officer Johns if he could give him a ride to his truck; Officer Johns said “probably,” and Mr. Towner ended the phone call. After confirming that Mr. Towner was not under the influence of alcohol or drugs, Officer Johns asked Mr. Towner where he was staying. He reported he was evicted from the place where he was staying, and the motel where he wanted to go was full. While answering this query, Mr. Towner was observed to be moving his hands in the air and mentioned the invisible wires around him.

Officer Johns informed Mr. Towner that he had to put Mr. Towner in handcuffs before he could transport him to the hospital in the patrol car and subsequently placed handcuffs on him. Officer Johns then told Mr. Towner that he was concerned about him because he saw wires that were not present that he believed would send him to hell and because he was not taking his medications, thus he was taking him to the hospital. While patting down Mr. Towner, Officer Johns found a plastic bag containing crystalline powder that Officer Johns identified as methamphetamine. Instead of taking Mr. Towner to a hospital, Officer Johns took him to jail.

The following day, Mr. Towner was charged with possession of a controlled substance. Mr. Towner moved to suppress on the basis that Officer Johns conducted an unreasonable search and seizure. The state argued the search was justified under the law enforcement’s community caretaker function exception, specifically under Idaho Code Ann. § 39–307A (2022) which allows a law enforcement officer to help an individual who appears intoxicated in public.

At the motion to suppress hearing, Officer Johns testified Mr. Towner was a threat to himself because he was responding to unseen others, had a mental health history, was possibly under the influence of substances, had no safe place to go, and believed invisible wires were going to kill him. Officer Johns also testified Mr. Towner was a threat to others because he stepped into the street without checking for oncoming traffic. Officer Johns explained it was common practice to search individuals prior to taking them into custody to ensure that they did not have weapons or items that could harm them or others. The state argued that Officer Johns acted reasonably by searching Mr. Towner to ensure that he had no hazardous items on his person prior to placing him in the patrol car. Citing other Idaho statutes, Mr. Towner argued that there was no substantial evidence to show that he was a danger to himself or others, or that he was gravely disabled, thus there was no basis for Officer Johns’ seizure or subsequent search.

On November 9, 2018, the district court ruled from the bench and denied Mr. Towner’s motion to suppress. The court indicated Idaho Code Ann. § 39–307A did not apply on the basis of Officer Johns’ testimony that his initial concerns were that Mr. Towner was hallucinating because of mental illness and not from alcohol or drug use. The court stated it was required to look at the totality of the circumstances, which Idaho had adopted as the test for analyzing community caretaker function exception cases, and whether the intrusive action of the police was reasonable in view of all the circumstances.

The court ruled that, on the basis of the totality of the circumstances, it was reasonable for Officer Johns to believe that Mr. Towner needed assistance and transport to the hospital to receive help, thus the community caretaker function exception existed. The court indicated the search was reasonable on two alternative rationales: the weapons search for safety of officer and others before placing him in the patrol car, and there could be “other reasons” to conduct a search to see why Mr. Towner was hallucinating.

Mr. Towner’s case proceeded to trial, where the district court admitted the evidence found on his person. On November 19, 2018, he was convicted by a jury for possession of a controlled substance. Mr. Towner appealed to the Idaho Court of Appeals, which affirmed the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress. Mr. Towner appealed to the Supreme Court of Idaho.

Ruling and Reasoning

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court of Idaho reversed the district court’s denial of Mr. Towner’s motion to suppress and remanded the case with instructions for the district court to enter findings of fact related to whether the state proved that Mr. Towner was “gravely disabled” or an “imminent danger” to himself or others because of his mental illness as outlined in Idaho Code Ann. § 66–326(1) (2022) before he was taken into protective custody. It ruled that the district court erred in concluding that Officer Johns’ act of taking Mr. Towner into protective custody was within his authority under the community caretaker function exception to the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution without the district court considering the requirements of Idaho Code Ann. § 66–326(1).

The state supreme court stated Mr. Towner’s initial seizure by Officer Johns, where the officer was calling out and having Mr. Towner walk back to the patrol car to talk, was permissible under the community caretaker function exception because he was concerned about Mr. Towner’s welfare and wanted to see if he needed help. But, prior to placing Mr. Towner in handcuffs and taking him into protective custody, the court ruled Officer Johns had to comply with the requirements of Idaho Code Ann. § 66–326(1), which stated that a law enforcement officer may only take a person into protective custody for mental health evaluation and treatment if the officer has reason to believe that the person is “gravely disabled” due to mental illness or the person is an “imminent danger” to himself or herself or others, as evidenced by a threat of “substantial physical harm.” The Supreme Court of Idaho ruled that the district court erred in not addressing the applicable requirements of Idaho Code Ann. § 66–326(1) and whether they were met. It reversed and remanded the case back to the lower court.