granting officers qualified immunity who detained individual for mental observation based upon individual's prior threats to "blow away" police officers, prior incidents in which individual used firearms when upset, and information that individual was under psychiatric care
How later courts described this case
- granting officers qualified immunity who detained individual for mental observation based upon individual's prior threats to "blow away" police officers, prior incidents in which individual used firearms when upset, and information that individual was under psychiatric care
- holding that judgment for defendant was appropriate where plaintiff had not proven severe injury despite allegations of excessive force
- finding officers’ detention of individual reasonable when effectuated based upon information provided by doctor, rather than their own personal observations
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
FAIRCHILD, Senior Circuit Judge,
concurring in part, dissenting in part.
I can agree that the information Dr. Do-shi gave the Evergreen Park Police was probable cause to believe that Ellis’ mental condition made him dangerous to himself or others. For the content of probable cause in this context, see McKinney v. George, 556 F.Supp. 645, 650 (N.D.Ill.1983), aff'd 726 F.2d 1183 ; Baltz v. Shelley, 661 F.Supp. 169, 178-79 (N.D.Ill.1987). See also, Annotation: Right, Without Judicial Proceeding, to Arrest and Detain One Who Is, or Is Suspected of Being, Mentally Deranged, 92 A.L.R.2d 570 (1963 & Supps.1983 & 1989).
Because the officers had probable cause, arrest of Ellis in order to convey him to the *990 mental hospital for examination and possible commitment would be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and failure to comply with state requirements would be immaterial. McKinney v. George, 726 F.2d 1183, 1187-88 (7th Cir.1984). With all respect, however, my examination of the record leads me to conclude that Ellis sufficiently made out a prima facie case that he was subjected to excessive force by the defendants he identified.
I can agree that the court order requiring a search for weapons justified the deputies in searching Chathas. In my opinion, however, her testimony, if believed, that DiCarlo and another deputy, after failing to respond to her request for an explanation, lifted her up by the arms and took her to the jury room, made out a prima facie case of unreasonable seizure of her person in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
On the point of qualified immunity, I do not agree that plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights had not been clearly established.
As to the other claims asserted by plaintiffs, I agree that the District Court correctly directed a verdict.