Linda Florek v. Village of Mundelei
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16854
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Police executed a search warrant at Linda Florek's Mundelein apartment after controlled marijuana buys connected to her residence.
- During the 10:22 PM raid, Florek was inside her living room; officers knocked, announced, and breached the door with a ram after about 15 seconds.
- Florek was handcuffed, not allowed to change clothes, and questioned amid a marijuana odor; her son was similarly restrained.
- Florek asked for baby aspirin and ambulance due to chest pains; officers denied aspirin per policy and said paramedics would be summoned if needed after arrival at the station.
- Florek suffered a heart attack later; paramedics treated her, an ambulance arrived, she was hospitalized, and she was later released with a misdemeanor marijuana possession disposition.
- Florek sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging unreasonable seizure (medically related) and unreasonable search; the district court granted summary judgment on some claims and a directed verdict on others, with only Hansen remaining on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Florek's aspirin-denial claim a constitutional violation? | Florek argues denial of aspirin violated her medical needs. | Village argues no clearly established right to OTC drugs during arrest; good-faith defense applies. | Summary judgment proper; no clearly established right. |
| Was the ambulance-refusal claim a constitutional violation? | Florek contends officers delayed emergency medical care by not calling an ambulance promptly. | Officers acted reasonably and summoned paramedics when chest pains were reported. | Ambulance-related claim resolved against Florek; jury verdict for Hansen affirmed. |
| Was there a Fourth Amendment violation for the knock-and-announce entry? | W ait time after knock was insufficient; entry violated knock-and-announce rule. | Reasonableness depends on circumstances; delayed entry acceptable under authorities and risk considerations. | No reversible error; expert testimony barred was appropriate. |
| Did the district court err in granting a directed verdict against the Village on Monell, absent underlying constitutional violation? | Monell claim should survive if underlying constitutional violation exists. | No underlying violation; no Monell liability. | Directed verdict affirmed; no Monell liability without constitutional violation. |
| Was the exclusion of expert testimony on knock-and-announce error? | Expert could assist on reasonable time to respond to knocks at door. | Expert testimony would not aid lay jurors; standard abuse of discretion. | Exclusion upheld; no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Rodriguez, 509 F.3d 392 (7th Cir. 2007) (factors for evaluating arrestee medical needs responses)
- Sides v. City of Champaign, 496 F.3d 820 (7th Cir. 2007) (reasonable response to medical needs at time of arrest)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2009) (qualified immunity two-step framework)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1989) (objective reasonableness under Fourth Amendment)
- Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1985) (totality of circumstances for reasonableness of seizures)
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (U.S. 1980) (arrest inside home may occur with probable cause during lawful search)
- Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927 (U.S. 1995) (knock-and-announce rule and discretion in enforcement)
- Kopf v. Skyrm, 993 F.2d 374 (4th Cir. 1993) (expert testimony may be appropriate for 'objective reasonableness' questions)
- Sallenger v. City of Springfield, 630 F.3d 499 (7th Cir. 2010) (reasonableness of prompt medical assistance and actions following arrest)
- Espinoza v. United States, 256 F.3d 718 (7th Cir. 2001) (standard for assessing reasonableness of police action)