Phyllis J. May v. City of Nahunta, Georgia
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 985
11th Cir.2017Background
- On August 3, 2011, EMTs responded to Phyllis May’s home after family could not wake her; EMTs placed an ammonia capsule under her nose and questioned her. May declined hospital transport and signed a refusal witnessed by a relative.
- Officer Tommy L. Allen arrived after a 911 call and, based on EMT reports that May had been combative with herself and his observation of her disheveled appearance, decided to seize and transport May for a psychiatric evaluation.
- While alone with May in her bedroom with the door closed, Officer Allen asked her to change clothes, allegedly locked the door, remained in the room for 15–20 minutes, touched her shoulder while pulling at her nightgown, and (according to May) patted his gun when she refused to remove shorts; Allen disputes key details.
- Officer Allen transported May to the hospital, where she was evaluated and released within a few hours; May then sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments) and asserted related state-law claims.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Officer Allen on qualified immunity and official immunity grounds; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part (initial seizure and transport) and reversed in part (manner of seizure), remanding for further proceedings limited to the alleged extraordinary manner of the seizure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Officer Allen’s initial seizure and transport for psychiatric evaluation violated the Fourth Amendment | May: seizure was unlawful because it was against her will | Allen: he had sufficient information (EMT reports, observations) to believe May was a danger to herself | Held: Allen had arguable probable cause; qualified immunity applies to the initial seizure/transport (affirmed) |
| Whether the manner of the seizure (locked room, forced/disrobing, gun-patting, duration) rendered the seizure unconstitutional | May: the conduct was degrading, coercive, and exceeded reasonable means; thus converted an otherwise lawful seizure into an unconstitutional one | Allen: his conduct was reasonable and necessary to ensure safety; he disputes many facts (duration, locking, disrobing) | Held: factual disputes exist and an objectively reasonable officer would have known such conduct was unlawful; qualified immunity denied as to manner-of-seizure claims (reversed and remanded) |
| Whether May’s § 1983 false-imprisonment claim succeeds given the initial seizure | May: detention in bedroom until hospital constituted false imprisonment and continued detention after entitlement to release | Allen: had arguable probable cause and did not act with deliberate indifference to continued detention rights | Held: because initial seizure was justified, Allen entitled to qualified immunity on § 1983 false-imprisonment claim (affirmed) |
| Whether state-law official immunity bars May’s state claims | May: alleged assault/battery, invasion of privacy, false imprisonment | Allen/City: official immunity applies; no actual malice shown | Held: district court’s ruling on official immunity for state-law claims left undisturbed on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Roberts v. Spielman, 643 F.3d 899 (11th Cir. 2011) (officer permissibly seized person for welfare check where 911 call and third‑party statements supported belief person was dangerous to herself)
- Montoute v. Carr, 114 F.3d 181 (11th Cir. 1997) (qualified immunity requires only arguable probable cause)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (Fourth Amendment seizure analysis; justification at inception and scope/duration review)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) (extraordinary manner doctrine: seizures may be unconstitutional based on manner of execution)
- Evans v. Stephens, 407 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir. 2005) (strip‑search and manner‑of‑seizure analysis; obvious‑clarity test and degrading/searches performed abusively)
- Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (2001) (manner of execution is vital to Fourth Amendment inquiry)
- Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002) (obvious‑clarity principle: conduct so antithetical to human dignity that unlawfulness is apparent)