80 F.4th 872
8th Cir.2023Background
- On Aug. 10, 2018, Mikel Neil crashed and died while fleeing St. Louis County officers Maloy and Jakob during a traffic pursuit.
- Cheeks (mother) alleges Officer Maloy performed a PIT maneuver causing Neil’s car to spin and crash; officers deny using a PIT.
- An eyewitness testified under oath that the police vehicle bumped Neil’s car; video footage does not capture the crash itself but shows the pursuit moments before it.
- Officers did not render aid or call for medical assistance at the scene; a civilian eyewitness called 911 within ~30 seconds and emergency responders arrived, but Neil died at the scene.
- Cheeks sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a Fourteenth Amendment due‑process violation for failing to provide medical aid; the district court denied qualified immunity on summary judgment.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding disputed factual issues exist and that, viewing facts favorably to Cheeks, the officers could be found to have violated a clearly established constitutional duty to render aid.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers’ conduct created a Fourteenth Amendment custody triggering an affirmative duty to provide aid | Maloy’s alleged PIT made Neil unable to care for himself, creating custody and a duty to render aid | Neil was never taken into custody; at most there was a pursuit or accidental crash, not custody | Court: disputed facts (eyewitness) could support a finding that officers intentionally caused the crash and thus created custodial-like restraint; jurors could find custody exists |
| Whether failure to render/call for medical aid violated the Due Process Clause (deliberate indifference) | Failure to render any aid after causing the crash shows deliberate indifference to an objectively serious medical need | Any failure to act did not change outcome because a civilian called 911 almost immediately; no showing of detrimental effect | Court: viewing facts for plaintiff, failing to render any aid can constitute deliberate indifference; jury could find constitutional violation |
| Whether plaintiff must show medical evidence of detrimental effect from delay/lack of treatment | Cheeks argues officers never called for aid (no aid at all), so no separate medical proof of detrimental effect is required | Officers say plaintiff must show medical evidence that delay or lack of aid worsened outcome | Court: when no aid was provided at all, precedent does not require additional verifying medical evidence of detrimental effect; different rule applies to mere delay claims |
| Whether the constitutional right was clearly established such that qualified immunity does not apply | Cheeks: existing precedent (DeShaney, City of Revere, Gladden) gave officers fair warning a custodial duty to provide medical care exists when state conduct renders a person unable to care for themselves | Officers: no controlling case clearly extends custody/duty to a person seized by force but not taken into custody; qualified immunity should protect them | Court: general rule that custody creates a duty was clearly established; a reasonable officer would know forcing a crash and failing to render aid violated the Constitution |
Key Cases Cited
- DeShaney v. Winnebago Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (state’s affirmative duties arise from custody)
- City of Revere v. Massachusetts Gen. Hosp., 463 U.S. 239 (state must provide medical care to persons injured while being apprehended)
- Gladden v. Richbourg, 759 F.3d 960 (custody defined by restraint that renders person unable to care for self)
- Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593 (intentional police conduct that terminates freedom of movement is a seizure)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (exception when version of facts is blatantly contradicted by video)
- California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (police pursuit alone is not a seizure)
- Coleman v. Rahija, 114 F.3d 778 (deliberate indifference requires objectively serious need; effect of delay matters)
- Jones v. Minnesota Dep't of Corr., 512 F.3d 478 (no medical-evidence requirement where no aid was provided at all)
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (qualified immunity requires right be sufficiently clear)
- Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (general constitutional rule may apply with obvious clarity to specific conduct)