J.H. Ex Rel. J.P. v. Bernalillo County
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 20697
| 10th Cir. | 2015Background
- An 11-year-old special-needs student (J.P.) kicked a teacher in class; a school resource deputy (J.M. Sharkey) witnessed the act, arrested her, handcuffed her, and transported her to a juvenile detention center.
- J.P.’s mother (J.H.) sued Deputy Sharkey and Bernalillo County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
- The district court dismissed the Fourteenth Amendment due process claims and granted summary judgment to defendants on Fourth Amendment and ADA claims.
- The Tenth Circuit reviewed de novo, with J.H. bearing the burden to show a clearly established constitutional violation given Deputy Sharkey’s qualified immunity defense.
- The court found Deputy Sharkey had probable cause (battery on a school official), that handcuffing and transporting did not constitute excessive force under the circumstances, and that no ADA claim for discrimination or failure to accommodate was supported by admissible evidence.
- Because no constitutional or ADA violation by the deputy was found, Bernalillo County could not be held liable for failure to train.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of arrest (probable cause) | Arrest unlawful; deputy lacked probable cause to arrest an 11‑year‑old | Deputy observed criminal act (kick = battery on school official) and had probable cause to arrest a juvenile | Arrest was supported by probable cause; Fourth Amendment not violated |
| Excessive force (handcuffing/transport) | Handcuffing and taking child to detention center was excessive force | Handcuffs and transport were reasonable for officer safety and permissible after arrest | Use of handcuffs and transport were not excessive under the circumstances |
| Fourteenth Amendment due process claim | Separate violation under due process for arrest/force | Fourth Amendment governs arrest/force claims occurring between arrest and probable-cause hearing; no separate Fourteenth violation | Fourteenth Amendment claims dismissed; Fourth Amendment controls these allegations |
| ADA claims (discrimination and failure to accommodate) | Arrest was by reason of J.P.’s disability and deputy failed to accommodate her learning disability | Deputy arrested based on observed criminal conduct; no evidence deputy knew of a need for accommodation and J.P. never requested one | ADA claims fail: arrest was for criminal conduct, not disability, and no reasonable accommodation claim supported by evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (2001) (officer may arrest for minor offense committed in presence)
- Hedgepeth ex rel. Hedgepeth v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., 386 F.3d 1148 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (arrest of child did not violate Fourth Amendment; no fundamental right to movement after probable cause)
- Fisher v. City of Las Cruces, 584 F.3d 888 (10th Cir. 2009) (handcuffing permitted for officer-safety even for petty misdemeanors; prolonged restraint can become unreasonable)
- Calvi v. Knox Cnty., 470 F.3d 422 (1st Cir. 2006) (retaining handcuffs during transport per standard police practice not excessive force)
- Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93 (2005) (distinguishing Fourth Amendment limits on detention and questioning during searches)
- Estate of Booker v. Gomez, 745 F.3d 405 (10th Cir. 2014) (excessive force claims between arrest and probable-cause hearing governed by Fourth Amendment, not Fourteenth)
- Gohier v. Enright, 186 F.3d 1216 (10th Cir. 1999) (noting uncertainty in Tenth Circuit about ADA wrongful-arrest theory)
- Robertson v. Las Animas Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 500 F.3d 1185 (10th Cir. 2007) (public entity must know of disability and need for accommodation before ADA duty arises)
- Roberts v. City of Omaha, 723 F.3d 966 (8th Cir. 2013) (arresting individual for violent act not ADA discrimination despite mental illness)