U.S. Appeals Court: MEDICAL CARE USE OF FORCE.

Grayson v. Peed, 195 F.3d 692 (4th Cir. 1999). The administrator for the estate of a deceased detainee sued officers and county officials under [sections] 1983 asserting constitutional violations, negligence, gross negligence, negligent training and negligent supervision. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants on all [sections] 1983 claims and declined to assume supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. The appeals court affirmed. The detainee had been arrested and transported to the county detention center and the following day was declared brain dead. During his booking the detainee was acting irrationally, his speech was slurred, and he kept repeating in an intoxicated manner "I can't believe this is all over a traffic ticket." He was then taken to a cell and strip searched, but at the conclusion of the search attempted to crawl out of the cell and a struggle ensued. Officers used pepper spray to subdue him. Early the next morning the detainee began acting belligerent again. He resisted being moved to another cell and a five-man cell extraction team pinned him face down. During the struggle he was sprayed with pepper spray and he was punched several times. Once restrained, he was carried face down to another cell and was placed in four-point restraints. A few minutes later he appeared to be unconscious and was checked by medics and was found to be "okay." Mother officer then noticed that the detainee was not breathing, CPR was initiated and he was taken to a local hospital where he was found to be brain dead. The appeals court held that officers at the county detention center were not deliberately indifferent to the medical needs of the deceased detainee, either when the detainee was booked or during his custody. A trained medic was on hand in the booking area and discerned no sign of a medical problem. According to the court, the failure to clean pepper spray off of the detainee in a timely manner was, in the first instance, due to the detainee's violent response to the officer' s offer to wash the spray off, and in the second instance was due to the need to rush the detainee to a hospital for emergency care. The appeals court held that the officers did not use excessive force against the detainee, but rather that they applied the force necessary in a good faith effort to restore discipline. The court also found that there were no actionable deficiencies in the sheriffs policies, customs or training. According to the court, "...the appellant's own expert penologist conceded that [sheriff] Peed's policies met the standards of both the Virginia Board of Corrections and the American Correctional Association." (Fairfax County Adult Detention Center, Virginia)