Pretrial detention.

32. Pretrial Detention

U.S. Appeals Court    Alkire v. Irving, 305 F.3d 456 (6th Cir. 2002).
                      An arrestee brought a [section] 1983 action
  RELEASE             against a sheriff, county, and county judge,
                      alleging violation of his Fourth, Thirteenth and
  INITIAL             Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court
  APPEARANCE          denied the arrestee's motion for class
                      certification and granted summary judgment for
                      the defendants on the remaining issues. The
                      appeals court affirmed in part, and reversed and
                      remanded in part. The appeals court held that the
                      Sheriff's policy of detaining persons in the
                      county jail until their initial appearance was
                      the type of "policy or custom" under which the
                      county could be held liable under [section] 1983.
                      As the result of the policy, persons arrested
                      without warrants from late Friday afternoon
                      through Sunday morning would not likely appear in
                      court before Tuesday morning, in violation of a
                      requirement that a probable cause hearing be held
                      within 48 hours of a warrantless arrest. The
                      appeals court held that the county, sheriff and
                      county clerk's office had quasi-judicial immunity
                      and qualified immunity from [section] 1983
                      liability for failing to allow credit toward
                      fines and costs for time served. (Holmes County
                      Jail, Ohio)

U.S. District Court   Bozeman v. Orum, 199 F.Supp.2d 1216 (M.D.Ala.
                      2002). The representative of the estate of a
  USE OF FORCE        pretrial detainee brought a [section] 1983 action
                      against a sheriff and officials at a county
  MEDICAL CARE        detention facility, alleging that the detainee's
                      death was the result constitutional violations.
                      The district court held that detention officers'
                      use of force to restrain the detainee did not
                      violate his Fourteenth Amendment right against
                      the use of excessive force, even though the
                      officers threatened to "kick" the detainee's
                      "ass." The officers apparently punched or slapped
                      the detainee, and the detainee died as the result
                      of the officers' actions, but the court found
                      that some level of force was necessary to restore
                      order where the detainee was apparently
                      undergoing a mental breakdown in his cell.

                      The court held that nurses at the detention
                      facility were not deliberately indifferent to the
                      serious medical needs of the detainee when they
                      failed to obtain treatment and medication upon
                      learning that the detainee had been evaluated for
                      mental health problems and prescribed medication
                      in the past. The court noted that the nurses had
                      no knowledge during intake beyond a "slight flag"
                      of past evaluations for mental illness and that
                      the detainee had medication to help him "rest."
                      The court also found that the failure of the
                      detention facility to implement a policy
                      requiring staff to follow up on inmates who had
                      acknowledged past mental health problems or
                      evaluations for mental health problems, did not
                      violate the detainee's Fourteenth Amendment right
                      to adequate medical care.

                      The court held that municipal jails are not
                      required to provide on-site psychiatric care for
                      their inmates, and that the detention facility
                      was not required to train its officers in
                      diagnosing or treating mental illness.

                      According to the court, the facility provided
                      adequate training in the proper use of deadly
                      force, including warnings on the dangers of
                      positional asphyxia, and was therefore not liable
                      under [section] 1983 for failing to supervise
                      staff.

                      The court found that summary judgment in favor of
                      the county was precluded by a genuine issue of
                      material fact on the allegation that officers
                      were deliberately indifferent to the medical
                      needs of the detainee by failing to resuscitate
                      him after they realized that he was not
                      breathing.

                      (Montgomery County Detention Facility, Alabama)

U.S. Appeals Court    Calderon-Ortiz v. Laboy-Alvarado, 300 F.3d 60
                      (1st Cir. 2002). A former pretrial detainee
  FAILURE TO          brought a [section] 1983 action against
  PROVIDE CARE        officials, alleging failure to protect him from
                      other inmates. The district court dismissed the
                      action. The appeals court reversed and remanded,
                      finding that the detainee's complaint
                      sufficiently stated a claim. The detainee alleged
                      he had been forcibly sodomized by other inmates,
                      that officials were aware that inmates were being
                      housed without adequate regard to their custody
                      and security needs, and that staff did not
                      provide adequate supervision. (Bayamon Regional
                      Metropolitan Detention Center, Puerto Rico)

U.S. Appeals Court    Frye v. Pettis County Sheriff Dept., 41 Fed.Appx.
                      906 (8th Cir. 2002). A pretrial detainee brought
  CONDITIONS          a [section] 1983 action against county officials,
                      alleging unsafe and hazardous living conditions
  SANITATION          at a county jail. The district court granted
                      summary judgment for the defendants and the
                      appeals court affirmed. The appeals court held
                      that the detainee failed to show that jail
                      officials were deliberately indifferent to his
                      health and safety because the toilet in his cell
                      leaked both sewage and water. Jail staff
                      frequently provided blankets or towels to absorb
                      the water and a plumber had attempted to fix the
                      toilet after the detainee slipped and fell.
                      (Pettis County Jail, Missouri)

U.S. Appeals Court    Gibson v. County of Washoe, Nev., 290 F.3d 1175
                      (9th Cir. 2002). The widow of a manic depressive
  MEDICAL CARE        detainee who suffered a heart attack and died
                      while in a county jail, sued the county, sheriff
  MEDICATION          and various officials under [section] 1983. The
                      district court entered summary judgment for the
                      defendants and the widow appealed. The appeals
                      court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and
                      remanded. The appeals court held that several
                      fact issues precluded summary judgment: whether
                      the county's policy of delaying medical screening
                      of combative inmates posed a substantial risk of
                      serious harm to the detainee; whether the county
                      was aware of that risk; whether the nurse who
                      received the detainee's medication at the jail
                      was deliberately indifferent; and whether the
                      county was liable based upon its policy regarding
                      handling of prescription medication. The appeals
                      court found that deputies who had contact with
                      the detainee after he was admitted to the jail,
                      and who took part in the forcible restraint that
                      preceded his death, were not deliberately
                      indifferent to his medical needs because they
                      knew nothing of his mental condition beyond what
                      they could observe. (Washoe County Jail, Nevada)

U.S. Appeals Court    Hanuman v. Groves, 41 Fed.Appx. 7 (8th Cir.
                      2002). An inmate brought a civil rights action
  TELEPHONE           alleging that, while he was a pretrial detainee,
                      prison officials violated his First and
                      Fourteenth Amendment rights by placing him in
                      segregation, where his telephone privileges were
                      limited. The district court entered summary
                      judgment in favor of the prison officials and the
                      appeals court affirmed. The appeals court held
                      that the limitations placed on phone privileges
                      did not give rise to First and Fourteenth
                      Amendment violations, where the inmate did not
                      demonstrate any actual injury from having to use
                      the telephone while it was noisy or in the
                      evening. (Pulaski County Detention Facility,
                      Arkansas)

U.S. Appeals Court    Jackson v. Illinois Medi-Car, Inc., 300 F.3d 760
                      (7th Cir. 2002). A pretrial detainee who was
  MEDICAL CARE        transported to a police station by a private
                      transportation service at the request of a police
  TRANSPORT           department, brought a [section] 1983 action
                      against the service and one of its drivers,
                      alleging denial of adequate medical care. The
                      district court granted summary judgment against
                      the detainee and the appeals court affirmed. The
                      appeals held that the decision of the driver to
                      transport the detainee to a police station,
                      rather than taking him to a hospital, did not
                      amount to deliberate indifference to the
                      detainee's objectively serious medical needs. The
                      detainee collapsed from an overdose of medication
                      shortly after reaching the police station. The
                      court noted that primary authority for the
                      detainee rested with the police officers, who had
                      last determined that he should be taken to the
                      police station, and the driver lacked medical
                      training or any realistic control over the
                      detainee. According to the court, "deliberate
                      indifference" is simply a synonym for intentional
                      or reckless conduct, and "reckless" describes
                      conduct so dangerous that the deliberate nature
                      of the defendant's actions can be inferred.
                      (City of Chicago, Illinois)

U.S. Appeals Court    Morris v. Crawford County, 299 F.3d 919 (8th Cir.
                      2002). A county detention center detainee brought
  FAILURE TO          [section] 1983 and state law battery claims
  PROTECT             against a sheriff, county, and deputies. The
                      district court granted summary judgment for the
  USE OF FORCE        defendants, in part, and the remaining claims
                      were voluntarily dismissed. The appeals court
                      affirmed, finding that there was not a strong
                      causal connection between a deputy sheriff's
                      background and the specific constitutional
                      violation alleged by the detainee. The detainee
                      had been arrested and charged with driving while
                      intoxicated and disorderly conduct. After
                      arriving at a county detention center, he refused
                      to take a breathalyzer test and began to yell and
                      bang on his cell door. Four deputies responded,
                      and according to the detainee, they repeatedly
                      assaulted him as they dragged him to another
                      cell. One deputy allegedly used excessive force
                      on the detainee by utilizing a "knee drop" on
                      him, which severed the detainee's intestine. The
                      court noted that the only violent act in the
                      deputy's record was an incident in which he
                      slapped an inmate, although ex parte protective
                      orders were obtained against the deputy by both
                      his ex-wife and girlfriend. The appeals court
                      held that the sheriff and the county were not
                      liable under [section] 1983 on the theory of
                      deliberate indifference in hiring the deputy.
                      (Crawford County Detention Center, Arkansas)

U.S. District Court   Peacock v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore,
                      199 F.Supp.2d 306 (D.Md. 2002). A detainee sued
  FALSE               local and county officials alleging false arrest
  IMPRISONMENT        and false imprisonment. The district court
                      granted summary judgment for the defendants. The
                      court held that members of the sheriff's office
                      could not be held liable for detaining the inmate
                      for 10 days without investigating his claim that
                      he had already completed his sentence for
                      violation of probation. It was eventually
                      confirmed that the detainee had served his
                      sentence, and he was released (Baltimore County
                      Detention Center, Maryland)

U.S. Appeals Court    Saulsberry v. Arpaio, 41 Fed.Appx. 953 (9th Cir.
                      2002). A detainee brought an action against a
  SEARCHES            county sheriff alleging violation of his Fourth
                      and Eighth Amendment rights. The district court
  DRUG TEST           entered judgment for the sheriff and the appeals
                      court affirmed. The appeals court held that a
                      physician working for the sheriff's office
                      ordered catheterization and drug screening for
                      the detainee solely for medical purposes, not for
                      any administrative or investigative reasons, and
                      therefore the tests did not violate the Fourth
                      Amendment. (Maricopa County Sheriff's Office,
                      Arizona)

U.S. Appeals Court    Troville v. Venz, 303 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 2002).
                      A civilly committed detainee filed a [section]
  CIVIL COMMITMENT    1983 action challenging his conditions of
                      confinement. The district court dismissed the
                      case for failure to state a claim and the
                      detainee appealed. The appeals court reversed and
                      remanded, finding that the civil detainee is not
                      a "prisoner" for purposes of the Prison
                      Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) and therefore the
                      PLRA provision requiring full payment of the
                      filing fee on appeal did not apply. The appeals
                      court held that the district court should have
                      permitted the detainee to amend his complaint.
                      According to the court, the definition of
                      "prisoner" in the in forma pauperis statute
                      applies only to persons incarcerated as
                      punishment for a criminal conviction, and a civil
                      detainee is not a "prisoner." (South Bay Detainee
                      Unit, South Bay Correctional Facility, Florida)

U.S. District Court   Turner v. Kight, 192 F.Supp.2d 391 (D.Md. 2002).
                      A female detainee who was arrested on an
  SEARCH              outstanding warrant associated with a civil
                      matter and detained at a jail brought an action
  MEDICAL CARE        against county and state officials. The district
                      court granted summary judgment for the
  USE OF FORCE        defendants. The court held that arresting and
                      booking officers were deliberately indifferent to
                      the detainee's serious medical needs when they
                      allegedly removed a neck brace and seized
                      medication, ignoring her complaints of pain and
                      muscle spasm. The detainee sometimes limped and
                      walked with a cane, but the court found that the
                      detainee's alleged pain did not rise to the level
                      of a serious medical need. The court granted
                      qualified immunity to the officers, finding that
                      there was no indication that the officers
                      actually knew of, and ignored, a serious need for
                      medical care. The court also found that the
                      officers were not deliberately indifferent by
                      failing to dispense medication in response to the
                      detainee's complaints of pain, where the officers
                      were not permitted to dispense medication and
                      they notified the detention facility's medical
                      staff of a nonemergency situation, who did not
                      respond during the six hours the detainee was
                      confined.

                      The court held that the detainee's allegation
                      that she was brutally handcuffed did not present
                      a constitutional violation, particularly in the
                      absence of any explanation of how the handcuffing
                      led to any injury.

                      The court held that if a strip search was
                      conducted by an officer of the same sex during
                      the processing of the detainee, it did not rise
                      to the level of a Fourth Amendment violation,
                      where the search was conducted in private and
                      there was no physical contact between the
                      detention officer and the detainee. (Montgomery
                      County Detention Center, Maryland)

U.S. District Court   U.S. v. Hammond, 204 F.Supp.2d 1157 (E.D.Wis.
                      2002). A defendant moved to modify his bail and
  BAIL                conditions of release. The U.S Magistrate reduced
                      bail and set conditions of release and the
  BAIL REFORM ACT     government moved for revocation of the order. The
                      district court denied the motion, finding that
  RELEASE-            the government failed to show that the defendant
  CONDITIONS          was dangerous and that no conditions of release
                      would reasonably assure the safety of the
                      community, and that the conditions of release
                      were insufficient. The defendant's bail was
                      reduced to $135,500 (from $150,000) and he was
                      required to submit to electronic monitoring,
                      travel restrictions, random urine tests, and
                      reporting to pre-trial services. He was also
                      ordered not to associate with the Outlaws
                      Motorcycle Club. (Eastern District, Wisconsin)

U.S. Appeals Court    Valdez v. Rosenbaum, 302 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir.
                      2002). A pretrial detainee brought a civil rights
  TELEPHONE           action against a federal prosecutor and jail
                      officials alleging that his constitutional rights
                      were violated during his detention in a state-
                      operated jail, as the result of restrictions
                      placed upon his telephone access. The district
                      court entered summary judgment in favor of the
                      defendants and the detainee appealed. The appeals
                      court affirmed, finding that a state law that
                      allowed prisoners reasonable access to the
                      telephone did not give the pretrial detainee a
                      liberty interest in telephone usage. The appeals
                      court held that telephone restrictions did not
                      violate the detainee's due process rights nor the
                      First Amendment, and that the detainee could not
                      maintain a Sixth Amendment claim based on the
                      telephone restrictions. The court noted that the
                      restrictions, which limited the detainee's
                      telephone access to calls to his attorney only,
                      were reasonably related to the legitimate
                      government interest of ensuring the safety of
                      police officers when they were executing arrests,
                      and preventing the detainee from helping his
                      co-conspirators elude arrest. The court noted
                      that the detainee was allowed to receive visitors
                      and could send and receive mail, but allowing the
                      detainee phone access would have required jail
                      staff to monitor his calls, and there was no
                      obvious, easy alternative to the restriction.
                      (Alaska Cook Inlet Pretrial Facility)

U.S. Appeals Court    White v. Crane, 45 Fed.Appx. 552 (8th Cir. 2002).
                      A county jail inmate brought a civil rights
  FAILURE TO          action against a sheriff, jail administrators,
  PROTECT             and jail officers, seeking compensation for
                      injuries incurred when he was placed in a cell
                      with another inmate who assaulted him. The
                      appeals court granted summary judgment in favor
                      of the jail officers, but the appeals court
                      reversed and remanded, finding that the officers
                      could not reasonably believe they were not
                      violating the inmate's right to be free from
                      attack. Upon admission to the jail, the plaintiff
                      inmate had notified an officer that the other
                      inmate should be put on his enemy-alert list
                      because of a problem he had just had with his
                      wife. When officers placed plaintiff inmate in
                      the same housing unit with the other inmate, the
                      plaintiff had asked them to at least handcuff the
                      other inmate before opening the door and the
                      officers refused. When the door was opened the
                      attack immediately occurred. (Hempstead County
                      Detention Facility, Arkansas)