Christiansen v. City of Tulsa
332 F.3d 1270, 2003 WL 21380556, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 11858 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
State actors are not liable under the Due Process Clause for failing to prevent a private act of violence, such as suicide, unless the state created a 'special relationship' by restraining the individual's liberty or its actions created or increased the danger in a manner that shocks the conscience.
Facts:
- On August 24, 1999, Meagan Thompson reported to 911 that her husband, Sean Christiansen, was armed, had threatened her, and was threatening suicide in their apartment.
- Christiansen, who had a history of psychiatric problems and had consumed medication and alcohol, told responding Tulsa Police Department (TPD) officers that he had armor-piercing ammunition and was prepared for a 'war'.
- Police established a perimeter and brought in a Special Operations Team (SOT) and a psychologist, Dr. Douglas Gentz, to assist with negotiations.
- Dr. Gentz instructed Christiansen's psychiatrist, Dr. Crass, not to contact Christiansen, in line with TPD policy to control third-party communications during standoffs.
- During negotiations, police denied requests from Christiansen's mother, Theresa Christiansen, to speak with him, fearing it would give him an opportunity to say 'goodbye' and follow through on his suicide threats.
- Police offered Christiansen medical help and access to his psychiatrist, but he did not respond to the offers.
- To prevent third-party interference, TPD had Christiansen's phone line disconnected and a new number assigned, which also prevented his internet access.
- After negotiations stalled and Christiansen became increasingly incoherent, the TPD fired a non-lethal 'flexible baton' through a window of an unoccupied room to encourage him to re-engage in good-faith negotiations.
- Seconds after the baton was fired, police negotiators heard a single gunshot and found Christiansen inside with a self-inflicted gunshot wound.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs (Theresa Christiansen, et al.) filed suit in federal district court against the City of Tulsa and several police officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
- All defendants filed motions for summary judgment, arguing they were entitled to qualified immunity and that no constitutional violation had occurred.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants, concluding that the plaintiffs' allegations failed to establish a constitutional violation.
- The plaintiffs then appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the conduct of police officers during an armed standoff with a suicidal individual, including isolating him from third-party contact and firing a non-lethal projectile to break a window, create a 'special relationship' or 'state-created danger' that violates the individual's substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment when he subsequently commits suicide?
Opinions:
Majority - Tacha, Chief Circuit Judge
No. The police officers' conduct did not violate Christiansen's substantive due process rights because it did not constitute excessive force, create a special relationship, or create a danger in a way that shocks the conscience. First, the court found no excessive force because the flexible baton was non-lethal, was fired into an unoccupied room, caused no direct physical injury, and was motivated by a desire to resolve the situation peacefully, not malice. Second, no 'special relationship' existed because the police never took Christiansen into custody or restrained his personal liberty; he was free to leave the apartment at any time, and police actively encouraged him to do so. Finally, the police did not create the danger, as Christiansen was already suicidal before their arrival. Their tactical decisions—such as restricting contact with his mother and psychiatrist and firing the baton—were not reckless or 'conscience-shocking,' but were aimed at managing a volatile situation and preventing his suicide. The court concluded that even if these decisions were ill-advised in hindsight, they did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high threshold required to hold state actors liable for failing to prevent harm from private acts under the 'state-created danger' doctrine. By finding that the police's tactical decisions in a high-stakes standoff were not 'conscience-shocking,' the court grants law enforcement significant deference in managing such crises. The ruling clarifies that actions intended to de-escalate or control a dangerous situation, even if they potentially contribute to a tragic outcome, will not create constitutional liability absent evidence of malicious intent or reckless conduct that demonstrates a deliberate disregard for the individual's life. This precedent makes it substantially more difficult for plaintiffs to succeed in § 1983 claims arising from suicides that occur during police standoffs.
