CLOANINGER EX REL. EST. OF CLOANINGER v. McDevitt
2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 2322, 555 F.3d 324, 2009 WL 296265 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Police officers have probable cause to seize a person for a psychological evaluation when the facts and circumstances within their knowledge, based on reasonably trustworthy information, are sufficient to lead a prudent person to believe the individual poses a danger to himself or others. Such a risk of danger can create exigent circumstances justifying a warrantless entry into a home to effectuate the seizure.
Facts:
- On March 9, 2005, Ralph Cloaninger felt ill after taking prescription medication and drank several ounces of bourbon.
- Cloaninger called the Veterans Administration (VA) hospital, and an employee told him that help was being sent to take him to a local hospital.
- A VA doctor called 911 to report that Cloaninger had threatened suicide.
- Burke County Deputies Parlier and Lo were dispatched to Cloaninger's home for a welfare check. Deputy Lo was aware that Cloaninger had made prior suicide threats and that firearms had previously been found in his residence.
- Cloaninger refused to cooperate with the officers and ordered them off his property.
- The officers' supervisor, Sergeant Treadway, arrived and also failed to communicate with Cloaninger. Treadway then called the VA hospital, where a nurse confirmed Cloaninger's history of threatening suicide.
- Treadway spoke with a Burke County magistrate by phone, relayed the information, and the magistrate agreed that an emergency commitment was appropriate.
- When Cloaninger opened his front door a few inches, the officers grabbed his arm, pulled him outside, wrestled him to the ground, and handcuffed him, breaking his arm in the process.
Procedural Posture:
- Ralph Cloaninger filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Deputies Parlier and Lo in the United States District Court, and the case was referred to a magistrate judge.
- The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing they were entitled to qualified immunity from the federal claims.
- The magistrate judge granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed all of Cloaninger's claims.
- Cloaninger appealed the magistrate judge's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth 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 a warrantless seizure of an individual from his home for a psychological evaluation violate the Fourth Amendment where police have a third-party suicide report, knowledge of the individual's history of suicide threats and prior firearm possession, and have consulted with medical personnel and a magistrate before acting?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Agee
No. The warrantless seizure did not violate the Fourth Amendment because the officers' actions were objectively reasonable and they are therefore entitled to qualified immunity. The court determined that probable cause to seize a person for a psychological evaluation exists when facts and circumstances from reasonably trustworthy sources would lead a prudent person to believe the individual poses a danger to themself or others. Unlike cases relying on a single, uncorroborated 911 call, these officers had a collection of information: the initial 911 call from a VA doctor, Deputy Lo's knowledge of Cloaninger's history of suicide threats and prior firearm possession, confirmation from a VA nurse of this history, and consultation with a magistrate who agreed commitment was appropriate. This totality of circumstances established probable cause. Furthermore, the risk that Cloaninger posed to himself created exigent circumstances, justifying the warrantless entry into his home to effect the seizure. Because the officers' conduct was objectively reasonable, they did not violate a clearly established constitutional right.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of probable cause for mental health seizures under the Fourth Amendment, establishing that a single report is insufficient but a collection of corroborated information from trustworthy sources can suffice. It reinforces the strength of the qualified immunity defense, showing that officers can be protected even when some facts about the subject's immediate conduct (like making verbal threats) are in dispute. The ruling provides a practical guide for law enforcement, emphasizing the importance of gathering corroborating evidence from official records, medical professionals, and judicial officers before conducting a warrantless seizure in a home based on exigent circumstances.
