A mentally ill patient “absconded” from a hospital and staff called police to find her and bring her back. When an officer encountered the woman, she resisted apprehension. The officers used a taser in drive-stun mode for 4-6 seconds and then the woman complied at which time the officer placed cuffs on her. The woman sued the officer under §1983 and Title II of the ADA.
Applying the Graham factors, the 1st Circuit held that a reasonable jury could conclude that this degree of force was unreasonable. The court further held that a subject’s mental illness is a factor that a police officer must take into account in determining what degree of force, if any, is appropriate. The court granted qualified immunity based on the second prong of the qualified immunity test. Specifically, the court held that “an objectively reasonable police officer in May of 2013 could have concluded that a single use of the Taser in drive-stun mode to quell a nonviolent, mentally ill individual who was resisting arrest.”
The court also held that the plaintiff failed to establish that the Town of Athol was liable for failure to train the officer under the “deliberate indifference” standard. Quoting the U.S. Supreme Court: A plaintiff typically must show a “pattern of similar constitutional violations by untrained employees . . . to demonstrate deliberate indifference for purposes of failure to train.” Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51, 62 (2011)” The plaintiff’s evidence fell “well short” of meeting that tough standard.
The court further held that Title II of the ADA applies to ad hoc police encounters (such as the encounter in this case) and that exigent circumstances can determine the reasonableness of an officer’s actions. There is a long discussion of Title II liability in the opinion that is noteworthy.
Editor’s Note: It is always educational to read opinions written by Judge Selya. This case is no exception (keep a dictionary handy). Unlike other cases where the court skips to the second prong of the qualified immunity test, the First Circuit answered the first question holding a reasonable jury could find the degree of force used was excessive under these facts. Dealing with mentally ill people is always a challenge for police officers. This is a good case for reviewing how the court will analyze use of force against a mentally ill person under the Graham factors.
To read or download a copy of the decision CLICK HERE