William E. "Buster" Fisher v. Tom E. Harden, in His Official Capacity as Sheriff of Morrow County, Ohio

FISHER, “Buster” et E. William Plaintiffs-Appellants,

al., HARDEN, E. in his official ca

Tom County,

pacity of Morrow as Sheriff

Ohio, Defendants-Appellees. al., et

No. 02-3996. Appeals, Court of

United States Circuit.

Sixth 11, 2004.

Argued: June Filed:

Decided and Feb. (2)

ty, genuine there no issue of on claim material fact Fisher’s train County adequately failed to and su pervise deputies. appeal, In this Fish er him asserts officers who seized justify cause to did not McNamara, James D. Co- ARGUED: seizure, mental health and Harden lumbus, Ohio, Douglas Appellants. J. for adequately supervise failed train and his Brant, Teetor, Suter, Isaac, & Ledman deputies.1 For the set reasons forth be Columbus, Ohio, Appellees. for ON low, REVERSE, part, in AF we and McNamara, Columbus, D. BRIEF: James FIRM, the of part, judgment in the dis Suter, Ohio, Appellants. Douglas for J. trict court. Teetor, Isaac, Brant, Ledman Colum- & bus, Ohio, Appellees. for FACTUAL BACKGROUND KEITH, CLAY, and Before: The facts relevant to this cause occurred

GIBBONS, Judges. Circuit 10, 2000, July on afternoon of in a the farming County, rural area of Morrow OPINION open area wide farm- Ohio. The of consists KEITH, Judge. Circuit land, heightened in ing visibility with all E. Plaintiff-Appellant, William Fisher, that day, directions.’ On a seven- Fisher, complaint filed a on De- “Buster” farmer, ty-seven-year-old gone retired had 2000, which, 4, in pursuant cember groundhogs, activity out in to shoot the charged § he Defen- U.S.C. routinely in engaged which he an effort to Harden, E. Sheriff Tom dants-Appellees, neighbors’ help protect crops. his Dressed Alexander, Molly Deputy Deputy Stephen overalls, him in bib Fisher had taken with (col- Alexander, Leary Deputy Mark and chair, rifle, his and a folding tripod Defendants”), lectively with having “the his rifle hold help he used to aim and against an unreasonable violated his himself, steady. positioned sitting it He by the Fourth and guaranteed seizure as chair, upon an elevated railroad folding Fourteenth Amendments to United neighbor’s of grade property. on one his 9, 2002, May States Constitution. On approximate- at a of Fisher sat distance joint for filed a motion sum- Defendants Road a rural ly yards County from mary judgment. The district court subse- road runs this area of Mor- through opinion on quently issued an and order passerby A County. row noticed Fisher granted it August which sitting on off in the distance railroad summary judg- request Defendants’ for a quite presence and found his there (1) tracks grounds ment on the had gathering that this was Upon unusual. reasonable that Fisher was sui- person, passerby cidal, possibly suicidal and, their consequence, actions County telephoned the Morrow Sheriffs in affecting pro- a seizure of Fisher were Department incorrectly, qualified reported, doctrine immuni- by tected Fisher, spouse, it that the Defendants Although Doris claims after concluded Fisher's judgment. Plaintiff-Appellant summary also a in this cause Inas- named were entitled action, her state law claim infliction upon did not rule much as the district court dis- law, emotional distress was dismissed those law claims as a matter state court, supple- trict to exercise declined subject appeal. of this claims are not the jurisdiction over all of state law mental a man his feet tied to the railroad their at a of nearly command distance yards Department away, complied Fisher readily tracks. The Sheriffs subse- with 58,” request. their quently dispatched a “Code which in- The officers instructed lay further suicide. down his possible folding dicates a Again, chair tripod. once Fisher could Defendants, deputies Two of the Ste request, readily hear complied.2 their Alexander, phen Molly Alexander who minutes, For wife, couple the next are offi- responded husband and cers observed Fisher walk toward the dispatch. scene, on Upon arrival road, nothing with hands. his As he the officers located who was still them, deliberately walked toward be- folding approximately seated chair apparent came to Mr. Alexander that Fish- yards away. Mr. Alexander used the er gentlemen. was an older The officers microphone system cruiser’s speaker and he approached conceded that them in a to arouse and Fisher’s attention instruct fashion, normal and act say did not out or him to come toward the officers. Fisher anything ordinary. do out of the None- up, gathered stood his belongings, and be theless, they kept weapons their drawn gan along walking the railroad tracks to upon and trained him. As Fisher arrived ward proceeded the officers. As Fisher road, at the Mr. Alexander directed him to them, toward the officers he noticed was walk backwards toward Mrs. Alexander. carrying slung a rifle his over shoulder. them, finally After he reached the officers They firearms, drew their crouched behind gunpoint, lay commanded still at to open doors, cruiser and ordered face the roadway, down on and handcuffed lay Fisher to down the coming rifle before him his back. behind any acknowledged closer. initially appeared Fisher unable to immediately Fisher went into cardiac ar- command, hear their first and re unsuccessfully rest. After attempting to sponded with additional feet, instructions for stand on Fisher his the officers left him lay Upon his hearing down rifle. him lying ground. handcuffed and on Q. Although complains got the dissent Okay. you, you it is As he closer to and 'readily' "unclear whether ... Fisher com- give through continued to this command plied them,” requests with the once heard he speaker, point appeared at some it 12, the fully dissent at record of this case you; that he did hear correct? supports this fact. record indicates that A. gun Correct. He laid the down. And Fisher did take other action than to put then I advised him to the chair and lay deputy’s down his rifle he heard the after whatever else he had It down. took him During following exchanges command. put two or three times to the chair down. deposition, responded Mr. Alexander step [continued And then to ask him to questions concerning compliance: Fisher’s road, turn around and walk back- Q. What was the first conversation that us]. wards to you got your occurred after out cruis- er? Q. obey you appeared it He did when grabbed A. I the mike to the PA and ad- finally you trying he heard what subject vised put gun. down his tell him? though you He did not seem as [sic] A. Correct. time, heard me the first Iso told him the ("J.A.”) Appendix Joint at 272-75. On the second reply though time. Still no as he evidence, basis of we conclude that Mr. again heard So me. I told him. And testimony clearly Alexander's evinces Fisher’s probably the third or fourth time that ready willing compliance depu- and with subject I put gun told the down commands, ty's that he so. once he heard those com-

mands. moving party the seriousness of material fact exists unaware of Presumably condition, immedi- judgment Mr. Alexander a matter of law. Fisher’s is entitled to objects 56(c). ately to retrieve went In considering Fed.R.Civ.P. such Shortly ground. placed on the Fisher had motion, the court views the evidence in the thereafter, nearby lived a woman who most light non-moving favorable to the Defendant, Leary, Deputy Mark another all party draws reasonable inferences wom- the scene. The separately arrived at in favor of non-moving party. Matsu an, to attain suffi- had been unable who Elec. Co. Zenith shita Indus. Radio Alexanders, in- from the cient attention 587, 106 Corp., U.S. S.Ct. from a Leary that Fisher suffered formed L.Ed.2d To a properly defeat Leary, observing Fisher’s heart condition. supported summary judgment, for motion him, state, uncuffed turned distressed party specific an adverse “must set forth for medical assis- on his back and called genuine there showing facts issue life-flighted to River- tance. Fisher 56(e). trial.” Fed.R.Civ.P. Columbus, Ohio, for emer- Hospital side on appeal. raises two issues survived, he Although Fisher gency care. First, pleaded he claims because a of the disabled as result permanently is a facts sufficient to establish constitutional incident. violation, in grant- the district court erred wit, later, months to Approximately five immunity ing qualified to the Defendants. 4, 2000, complaint filed a Fisher December Second, a genuine asserts that is- Fisher in the United against the Defendants of material fact exists on his claim that sue Dis- the Southern District Court for States properly super- Harden to train failed complaint, Fisher trict of Ohio. his address each of deputies. vise We things, that the offi- charges, among other in turn. these issues by guaranteed right, his as cers violated Amendments the Fourth Fourteenth I. Constitution, to be to the United States error, of Fisher con- point without In his first free unreasonable seizure from cause, Har- Tom probable and that Sheriff has a constitu- tends established super- adequately facts, to train and den failed as- because the as tional violation 2002, 6, August deputies. vise On his him, the officers serted establish that mo- granted the Defendants’ district court cause probable him without the arrested so, summary doing judgment. tion for a required support to a mental health that is court that the offi- the district determined concluded that The district court seizure. immunity qualified cers entitled to cause to the officers did not need to a failed establish because Fisher had only but justify their seizure violation, and that there constitutional that he was needed reasonable to a material fact genuine no issue of point to could Since suicidal. for a support against his claim Harden to a reasonable support articulable facts supervise deputies. failure to train suicidal, the dis- suspicion that Fisher was This followed. appeal trict court determined Fisher violation, to a constitutional failed establish DISCUSSION to were entitled and as a result the officers conducts a de novo review This court immunity. qualified summary judg- grant a district court’s immunity applies qualified Whether Brush, 767, Holloway F.3d ment. v. law question actions a (6th Cir.2000). to an official’s is Summary is judgment Virgili v. reviews de novo. issue of court only genuine where no proper (6th Cir.2001). Gilbert, 391, court, health seizure. district howev- Qualified immunity conceptually “is dis- er, determined the officers did not plaintiffs tinct from merits rather arrest but restrained as 511, Forsyth, 472 claim.” Mitchell v. U.S. Ohio, part Terry stop. Terry of a 2806, L.Ed.2d 411 105 S.Ct. 392 U.S. 88 S.Ct. 20 L.Ed.2d 889 It not to to is “an entitlement be forced (1968). In awarding qualified immunity to litigate consequences official con- officers, analogized the district court duct.” Id. “The entitlement is an immu- seizure, mental health seizure to a criminal nity suit rather than mere defense from determining “the same Fourth liability; immunity, and like an absolute applicable Amendment standards to inves- effectively erroneously lost if a case is tigative stops and arrests for criminal ac- permitted go to trial.” Id. at tivity apply police investigations as well S.Ct. 2806. of persons reportedly mentally who are entitlement, In defining this the Su- such, ill.” J.A. at 28. As the district court preme Court has that “government held determined that “even where performing discretionary officials functions officer, is lacking, pursuant cause generally are liability shielded from guidelines applicable a Terry civil insofar damages as conduct does stop, investigate report possibly aof clearly statutory not violate established or suicidal individual where articulable facts rights constitutional of which a reasonable present indicate that individual may person would have known.” Harlow danger himself J.A. at others.” 800, 818, Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. Inasmuch district court also (1982). 73 L.Ed.2d 396 In the that believed the officers had an articula- Court two-part established a de- test for and ble reasonable that Fisher termining qualified immunity ap- whether others, harm might himself or it held that plies. Katz, 194, 201, Saucier v. 533 U.S. investigative stop the did not violate the L.Ed.2d disagree. constitution. We inquiry, the initial we must “this consider question: threshold light Taken in the This case involves a seizure on the asserting most favorable to party the the of an attempted report. basis suicide injury, alleged do the facts offi- show the Defendants do not contest that Fisher was cer’s a conduct violated constitutional seized, but rather advocate that his seizure facts, right?” If alleged by Id. the the part was valid as of an investigative Te'try claimant, violation, a fail establish then Defendants, however, stop. concede hand, immunity applies. On the other if they that were a responding report not alleged the sufficiently facts demonstrate a they of criminal and conduct that never violation, constitutional must we determine suspected that engaged Fisher was in or clearly “whether the was estab- about be in a engaged crime. Absent lished.” Id. suspected activity, criminal in this circuit a

A. law enforcement official physically an merely restrain individual to assess his question We address the threshold Rather, mental health. we have estab whether the facts alleged show the offi- that lished in the context aof mental cers’ a conduct violated constitutional proba health seizure an officer have must right. argues vio- officers ble cause to that person believe the seized lated his Fourth rights Amendment when they poses danger him to himself or arrested without the others. We probable cause required justify that is analyze a mental cases such as this the prob- under they probable had cause to believe that announced cause standard. able Oullette, to himself Monday danger Fisher was or others. court Cir.1997). responding dispatch Under The officers to a were standard, detaining man, an individual officers had tied to rail- who himself “proba- tracks, suicidal must have believed be might attempting road be to com- person the cause to believe arrived, ble they mit or- suicide. When Id. himself or others.” dangerous to dered Fisher to come road. His doing immediately so revealed he was to a responded an officer Monday, not tied to railroad tracks as had been plaintiff had tele- dispatch that the radio would caused a reported. This alone worker and stated a mental health phoned veracity question reasonable officer to divorce, over upset he was attempted report. suicide When drinking and alco- pills, some was ingested that Fisher had a rifle officers noticed to commit When hol in effort suicide. shoulder, they his slung over ordered home, plaintiff the officer entered down, put complied. pro- and he He drinking appeared alcohol in fact in a normal manner depressed. The officer’s ceeded towards them intoxicated and age. revealed his plaintiffs pills Xanax for an individual of Unlike count twenty missing. Under in Monday, that at least the Alexanders never circumstances, we that the offi- might held if questioned those Fisher to determine “had cause to believe cer depressed attempting to commit be to commit plaintiff attempting [the] Even at the suicide. after Fisher arrived suicide, might injure himself.” or at least apparent and it that he was road became Id. years man of his later dressed attire, hunting the officers still did not A showing of cause him, inquiry purpose make requires seizure context mental health there, activity or being which he was chance” only “probability substantial seemingly engaged at time of their behavior, not show dangerous an actual Instead, con- arrival. with firearms Id. Illinois v. ing (citing of such behavior. him, tinually they ordered upon trained Gates, 13, 462 245 n. 103 S.Ct. U.S. roadway get on the Fisher face-down (1983)). ac Just as L.Ed.2d his and handcuffed behind back. an will not render invalid tual innocence upon proba addition, that properly arrest based anything In did not Fisher do activity, criminal was occur ble cause that suspi- the officers considered to be upon rest ring, a mental health seizure can carry He did not threatening. cious or person cause even when the in He in a his hands. ready position rifle actually not suffer from a dan seized does officers, himself, or point not it at the did mental condition. Id. eval gerous Courts anyone put else. the rifle down when He probable cause from uate the existence of it, away to do and walked from asked so objec perspective of reasonable At turning gun. toward the never back seizing position in the person tive handcuffed, lay he the rifle the time circumstances, “If the viewed official. Id. away. ground roughly yards on objectively, support finding of posses- Fisher in The officers never saw cause, arresting officer’s actual [then] any weapon. of Fisher sion other City irrelevant.” v. motives are Criss abusive, of verbally threatening, or ir- never Cir.1988). Kent, 259, 262 867 F.2d rational; any make not statements else; anyone hurting or case, about himself Monday, this unlike in the De- In or to avoid the officers attempted he never unable to demonstrate fendants are Both er- a began Terry flee the area. officers admitted that confrontation that as a anything not! arrest, Fisher did do made stop has matured into an we assess light of these circum- them afraid. reasonably “whether the use force was stances, simply are no facts from there hand,” in scope related the situation at officer could a- reasonable have Feathers, 851, or, likewise, F.3d at probability found a or substantial chance length whether and manner of [the] “the posed danger himself or Fisher investigative stop reasonably [was] related .Viewing time he was seized. others at the intrusion,” to the basis for the initial him, light in the most favorable facts Weaver, at investiga- 408. “[T]he Fisher we find that has established viola- employed tive methods should be the least rights. tion of his Fourth Amendment reasonably intrusive means available to urge us to adopt Defendants verify dispel suspicion or the officer’s in a would law of apply Terry rule that v. period Royer, short time.” Florida Ohio to mental health seizures. Based on 491, 500, 460 U.S. so, our to do precedent, we decline but L.Ed.2d 229 apply such a would not to this in rule case Assuming principles ap- that these are any assuming, arguendo, Even event. plicable present case, to the we would part investigatory that as detention agree began encounter here as an permitted physically officers were re stop investigatory incident to a suicide re- in strain a detainee order assess his Nevertheless, port. light Fisher’s (and mental all in the state absence of a compliance because not he did take conduct), suspicion of criminal reasonable sudden, unpredictable, threatening or in the apply this rule instant would officers, action abundantly toward the it is case the Alexan force used because apparent that the quickly seizure of Fisher ders elevated their seizure Fisher from elevated full assessing into a arrest. to an investigatory stop mere arrest. the use of force we conclude “Although an officer reasonable the manner which the posses detain a or his person to- investigation, sions for reasonably officer’s investi seized Fisher was not related gative detention can mature arrest basis of initial intrusion. The into.an or seizure if occurs over an unreasonable Alexanders confronted Fisher on the basis period of time under unreasonable cir of a report that he was suicidal. Mr. Heath, cumstances.” United States purpose Alexander testified that his (6th Cir.2001) (quoting 529-30 seizing was to determine whether 343, Avery, v. F.3d United States 137 349 why he was suicidal—“to find out he would Cir.1997)). See also Weaver Sha you,” been or have depressed what doan, (6th Cir.2003) (“An 398, F.3d 340 408 298, J.A. at and see if suicidal “[t]o he was investigative Terry stop ripen into a attention,” or if see he needed medical id. through arrest of passage the time defactó Indeed, at similarly 301. the district court force.”); or the v. Aey, use of Feathers 319 found that “it is true that the depu- when (6th Cir.2003) 843, (determining 851 ties made contact with Mr. investigatory stop whether' an “escalated” did so solely investigate possible to a sui- arrest). If, into through passage an the added). cide.” (emphasis Id. at 26 force, investigative time or an use de In his deposition, Mr. Alexander testi- arrest, tention “a ripens suspect’s into an fied that he familiar with area was the upon continued detention must based be area, Weaver, it unincorporated knew to be an rural cause.” 340 F.3d at 408 added). (emphasis In determining routinely wheth- where and it hunting occurred is a In- Leary in with committed such violation. public for a to be lawful citizen deed, wearing all the evidence indicates that bib overalls Fisher was rifle. to small, Leary essentially came Fisher’s rescue pouch for ammu- a homemade with removing calling a his handcuffs and holding He been nition on front. Hence, chair, emergency medical assistance. as rifle, with folding in a hunting seated Leary, we with the court agree district steady and aim the rifle. tripod help that Fisher has not shown constitutional elderly appearance of presented He violation. hunters hunting in a location where man about commonly Everything found. are B. setting, sug- in appearance, that Fisher’s Next, we must determine “whether than benign encounter rather gested right clearly was Sauci established.” dangerous one. er, 201, 533 U.S. at 121 S.Ct. 2151. This Moreover, admitted Mr. Alexander inquiry, “must be second undertaken anything that caused Fisher did not do light specific of the context of not subsequent laying down officers concern general proposition.” as a broad Id. “The asked, than the rifle. “Other When sufficiently right contours of the must be all normal caution that un clear that reasonable official would exercise, you Mr. Fisher should didn’t see is doing derstand what he violates you fearful anything caused to be do right.” Id. at S.Ct. down, gun of him once he laid (citation omitted). relevant, disposi 299-300, re- at Mr. Alexander you?” id. is clear inquiry tive “whether would be any- doing “I recall him sponded, don’t that his to a reasonable officer conduct no,” id. at thing, unlawful the situation confronted.” acknowledgment that Fish- Despite this Id. to fear er took no action that caused them say is not that an action “This official safety, forced for their Alexanders immunity unless protected by qualified is ground, gun on the at Fisher face-down very question action in previously has him. point, handcuffed unlawful; say it is been held but any suspicion force without employed this pre-existing law unlawful light activi- involved criminal Anderson, 483 apparent.” ness must be weapon- him for ty, frisking without other (citation at omit U.S. 107 S.Ct. ry, asking single ques- without ted). be action’s can “[A]n unlawfulness record, review tion. Based on our holdings, specif from apparent direct from repre- that this use of force we do find prohibited, or examples ic described reason- “the least intrusive means sented general reasoning that a court from the the Alex- ably verify dispel” available Feathers, 319 F.3d at 848 employs.” anders’ that Fisher was suicidal. Cir.2003) Pelzer, U.S. (citing Hope conclude that the use force exceeded We L.Ed.2d stop investigative for an required what was (2002)). determining whether a in which and that the manner established, clearly we have concluded In constituted an arrest. seized Fisher instance, ordinary “in the ... a district cause, action probable the absence of such by the binding precedent must court find the violates constitution. Court, or appeals its court of Supreme a In forth Assoc. holding Employees that Fisher has set Ohio Serv. itself.” Civil violation, Seiter, we conclude 858 F.2d Cir. constitutional also 1988). by “A of of support mere handful decisions only that the facts a violation courts, are circuit district do not find other and the Alexanders. We novel, ed, specifically form for in 1997 this admittedly cannot the basis court held that right requires constitutional in Fourth clearly a established Amendment an offi “[t]he We, howev- seizing detaining person this circuit.” Id. at 1177-78. and a a cial for er, may in “it certain cases psychiatric also noted that evaluation to probable the other possible for decisions of person be to danger cause believe that the is clearly principle to establish a of courts Monday, ous himself or to others.” exceptional law.” Id. at 1177. these 1102. in F.3d at The seizure this case was cases, may of the decisions other courts specifically purposes profes not for of a clearly established law if the deci- provide psychiatric sional evaluation. This differ unmistakably un- point sions “both to the however, ence, Viewing is of no effect.3 complained the constitutionality of conduct in to light the evidence the most favorable clearly and [are] of so foreshadowed Fisher, we of reject must the sentiments authority direct as to no applicable leave “merely the dissent that the deputies in of a officer doubt the mind reasonable securing the scene.” Dissent at 852. conduct, challenged that his if on constitu- First, we reiterate that the district court grounds, wanting.” be tional would found found “it is true when depu Id. they ties made contact with Mr. solely investigate possible did so to a sui

Applying principles these addition, cide.” J.A. at 26. In Mr. Alex right we conclude that present claimed that Mr. a ander Fisher was “[i]f clearly ques specific established. The risk if in suicide and felt [he] [Fisher] was clearly tion at issue is whether it was a set could mind where he be of risk established at time of arrest Fisher’s others, a or had the law enforcement not himself under [he] officer affect mental health without Ohio statute to take Fisher into pro seizure Mr. already Moreover, probable custody.”4 cause. As we have not- tective attempts distinguish Monday dangerous 3. The person dissent believe that the is to him- by arguing dangerous that “there is no indication that self others. If a mental con- analogized seized Fisher to detain him until dition role of criminal evaluation,” psychiatric received a activity but in traditional Fourth Amendment they temporarily analysis, rather "detained Fisher showing probable cause in order to whether cause determine only requires mental health context seizure existed to detain him further.” at 13- Dissent 'probability or substantial chance’ of dan- however, theory, behavior, 14. This that the assumes gerous showing actual investigative governing Terry law stops in the behavior. such applies equally criminal context (citations Thus, to cases in- omitted). at volving only a mental health That is seizure. Monday never indicated that in the absence not the law of circuit. (i.e., activity criminal lesser some standard support theory, suspicion) apply search of some for its reasonable would to a less expand attempts dissent this court's hold- intrusive seizure. ing Monday, case claims that in that regard, In this we also note that the district dangerous “this court analogized mental following: found the court activity condition 'to the role criminal ” analysis.’ Sage, traditional Fourth Amendment Suicide is not a crime in Ohio. State v. reading Dissent at applicable 14. A full Ohio St.3d N.E.2d however, However, passage Monday, reveals were aware that un- law, analogy activity solely they authority criminal was used Ohio der to take specific purpose defining custody person transport for con- into what person hospital stitutes cause: to a a mental evaluation requires Fourth Amendment an official where had “reason to believe that the seizing detaining person psychi- person person mentally subject for a is a ill probable rep- atric hospitalization by have evaluation to cause to court order ... and

847 probable emergency faith and for that caused the officers cause anything not do commitment); Barnard, safety. id. at 299-300. In re 455 F.2d for their fear (D.C.Cir.1971) offi probable record evidence reveals (requiring This Fisher, not mere and detained cers seized person cause to detain believed to be men- scene, purposes of but for ly to secure tally dangerous). ill and our health evaluation. Under a mental support position To its that the mere that ac jurisprudence, Amendment Fourth of a firearm distin possession probable cause.5 requires tion guishes present the dissent cites in which any ease have not found We (7th Irwin, Cir.2003), Bell v. 321 F.3d 637 may court has stated that this Wallace, v. F.2d 580 and United States liberty on the sole an individual’s restrain (5th Cir.1989). Both of these cases are suspicion have that a reasonable basis Bell, inapposite. Douglas Bell’s wife from a mental that the individual suffers telephoned police seeking protection addition, other circuits illness. Although he threatened after her. similarly have have examined issue couple quickly reconciled and asked is the correct probable cause held responding police officer to leave them See, e.g., County v. Sullivan standard. of alone, forty minutes of their later one Hunt, Tex., 41165, 2004 WL No. 03 — called the neighbors police reported 2004) (5th (citing July Cir. the wife was on doors knocking York, City v. Anthony New scene, safety. Returning search of (2d Cir.2003), a mental health the same officer Bell’s wife down located in which Circuit case the Second seizure the street. Bell to allow the offi refused immunity under granted qualified home, into his initiated a back cer who standard); v. Ken Bailey cause probable check,6 and wife informed ground Bell’s (officers Cir.2003) nedy, 349 F.3d 731 attempted that her police husband for probable cause to seize must suicide. evaluation); mental Glass emergency window, Through observed Cir.1993) (2d (requir F.2d 55 Mayas, 984 knives, several of which holding Bell one involuntary hospi cause for ing probable a wall front door he drove into near the talization); County Four Sherman v. into the of which he threw and several Ctr., Cir. Counseling 987 F.2d 397 police. direction Bell yard 1993) probable cause to detain (requiring that he [police] “told the chief specifically evaluation); Gooden psychiatric kill entered (4th would officer who Md., County, Howard himself,” id. and “threat- kill at Cir.1992) then (finding clearly estab up using propane blow his home ened to cause for that officers need lished Pirch, immediately out- seizure); and kerosene tanks health Harris v. mental (8th Cir.1982) side,” police then (requiring good id. at 639. The local 677 F.2d 681 intervene, may be con- physical harm a seizure a substantial risk of the officers resents stitutionally permissible. at circum- or others to remain Those to self if allowed present exception to the liberty pending examination." stances could general requiring probable cause to effect (quoting Revised Code rule J.A. at Ohio 5122.10). believe health We do not § a mental seizure. justify- presents this case circumstances possibility exception. that under certain application 5. We note ing the such an circumstances, exigent emergency or where (but history for domestic of arrests 6. Bell had officers have reasonable violence, cause) weapons, obstruc- imminent unlawful use of that it is believe driving. justice, unless tion of and drunk an individual commit suicide id., police okay,” from the state sought “responded assistance Wallace affirmative id., ly,” but “quickly the woman said ‘no’ even from Bell’s father. None of these and informed the officers that had Wallace negotiations prevailing. Following gun himself,” and was kill threatening to activities, all of these an officer fired bean- id. The officers then restrained Wallace’s bag rounds at Bell because he observed hands and gun.7 uphold removed his Bell lean toward one of the tanks with ing the district court’s denial of Wallace’s appeared cigarette what to be a lighter. suppress gun, motion to the Fifth Cir result, injured As a Bell was and filed suit cuit determined the removal of Wal against individual asserting certain gun “nothing lace’s was than ‘stop more used force. excessive ” id., frisk,’ pursuant Terry v. Ohio Bell was not a case about unreasonable “[ajfter learning because from the obvious seizure; instead it was a case about the ly companion distressed Wallace force, plaintiff use of excessive where the gun suicide, threatening and was ‘[i]t kill threatened “he would officer would poor police have been work indeed’ who entered and then kill himself.” 321 scene,” police for the to have left the Wal Every alleged F.3d at 638. at- case of lace, added) 889 F.2d at (emphasis (citation tempted omitted) (second suicide does not include threats to in origi bracket nal). Indeed, others. there were no threats in present case. The facts in Bell are Wallace readily distinguishable is also completely at presently odds with the facts present Wallace, from the case. In Certainly

before this court. Bell does not responding officers were to a report of a support disturbance, proposition that Fisher’s law- not a report, suicide and re firearm, alone, ful ceived confirmation possession through of a verbal and vi standing signs sual danger Wallace could be a upon constitutes a sufficient basis which to to himself They only and others. acted justify the seizure in this case. after Wallace and his agree wife could not upon The other case which the dissent on whether “everything okay,” relies, Wallace, involved circumstances after she told them that Wallace had a gun police responded to a “distur- and was threatening pres suicide. In the bance.” Upon arriving 889 F.2d at 582. ent presented information at an apartment complex where the “dis- officers was much vague. more The Alex reported, turbance” was the officers heard anders were investigating an unconfirmed loud emanating apartment. voices from the report that an individual was suicidal. The officers apartment knocked on the Fisher was not in company of an obvi door opened by and “the door was a wom- ously And, companion. distressed an who crying.” was red-faced and Id. Rather, question failed to him. Wallace also came to the door. When the they drew guns, ordered Fisher to “everything asked whether ground, and handcuffed him.8 Butcher, disorderly however, 7. The officers arrested Wallace for sent at 854. inap- is also conduct, posite. subsequently unpublished and Wallace was That in- criminal case in- being appeal volved possession dicted for of a felon of a district court's order denying the suppress defendants’ motion to firearm. evidence. underlying The facts the conviction upon 8. The dissent also relies United States v. stop, involved a traffic where the officers sus- Butcher, 92-3987/4011, Nos. 1993 WL pected the defendants of involvement in crim- 19, 1993), July at *7 Cir. for the activity, inal background and in which a proposition pos- the "fact that Fisher check suspicions, prior confirmed these all gave sessed one firearm reason the contested seizures. One of the officers possessed to believe that he another." Dis- sweep conducted a passen- visual of the front

849 ipal disregarded to es- actor known or obvious alleged facts sufficient Fisher has Stemler, consequence of his constitutional his action.” a violation of 126 tablish omitted). clearly (citation that an rights. It is established F.3d at 865 a mental sei- may not affect health officer case, In this the evidence indicates Viewing cause. zure without police training the officers received in most favorable to light facts Training from the Ohio Peace Officers engaged we conclude that Alexanders Academy. Mr. Alexander also for trained clearly estab- in conduct that violated supervision two under the months of two right. Accordingly, lished constitutional sergeants. Despite arguments his to the immunity not qualified we find that does contrary, liability. produce has failed to from civil Fisher suf shield them ficient that the officers’ training evidence II. addition, programs inadequate. were Harden, charges also Tom Fisher County Fisher has not shown that as Sheriff of Morrow capacity in his official prior knew of unconstitutional actions Ohio, failure to and County, with a train employees respond. its failed to and Ac “[Ojfficial-eapacity supervise deputies. cordingly, in the district court not err only way generally represent suits another for granting summary judgment Harden against entity an of pleading of an action supervise on the train failure to and claim. agent.” v. which an officer is Monell York, City Dep’t New Soc. Serv. of of of Ill 658, 691, 98 S.Ct. 436 U.S. (1978). To on his

L.Ed.2d 611 succeed reasons, For the we foregoing find claim, prove must that the Monell Fisher the district in granting court erred sum- Department was County Morrow Sheriffs mary judgment for the on Alexanders to the deliberately rights indifferent claim, Fisher’s constitutional but not with depu into contact citizens who came with summary judgments respect to its for Florence, City ties. Stemler v. Leary or Harden. The district court’s or- Cir.1997). Fisher must show REVERSED, summary judgment der of of unconstitutional conduct prior instances AFFIRMED, in and part, part, the case ig has demonstrating County proceedings consis- is REMANDED clearly history nored a of abuse and was with opinion. tent this training particu on that the notice likely and cause lar area was deficient GIBBONS, Circuit JULIA SMITH Detroit, id.; City injury. Berry Judge, dissenting. Cir.1994) (citing view, Harris, 378, 109 my deputies Stephen Molly City Canton U.S. (1989)). Alexander violate Fisher’s constitu- did not S.Ct. 103 L.Ed.2d “De thus rights, tional were entitled stringent liberate is a stan indifference fault, I therefore proof qualified immunity. a munic- dissent. requiring dard pat ger during compartment, noticed er down or frisk defendants however, officers, pre- justified. The tip weapon the seat. of a under indicia of criminal ac- sented with numerous When the Butcher court stated that tivity prior pat present In the down. presence shotgun gave the of a suspected never Fisher the Alexanders more, to believe defen- reasonable activity. of criminal Even weapons may possess prior being dants other on their subjected pat frisk to a persons, pavement forced to and handcuffed. issue before the court was wheth- Initially, significant I note example, appeared facts after it that Fisher officers, emphasized record that are not ma heard the it still took two three First, jority’s opinion. eventually requests more comply for Fisher to with while perched that Fisher light request put came to on the chair his down on the in ground, the railroad tracks order to shoot according to both the incident re- the defendants groundhogs, port deposition testified that and Alexander’s testimony. they prior were not familiar with Fisher Third, road, as Fisher reached the at the the were not incident aware his and point Stephen when told Fisher to walk penchant hunting groundhogs. for Ste him Molly, backwards toward and Stephen was, however, phen Alexander aware that noticed several firearm ammunition shells individuals sometimes committed suicide in Fisher’s Stephen overalls. could not tell by sitting on the railroad This fact tracks. type at that time for what gun the shells Stephen was known to both because his were intended. Because he believed that father had a long-time been railroad em placed the firearm Fisher on ground the ployee Stephen people who told had shotgun was a and was unsure what type by sitting committed suicide on the tracks of shells Fisher on person, his that, approxi and because .he was aware possessed feared that Fisher another fire- mately year prior, one another individual arm. itWhile not have been “out of County committed suicide in Morrow in ordinary” for Fisher to have numerous such a manner. the area in While ammunition person, shells on his it is cer- Fisher was located was rural area that tainly important fact to note in assess- used, hunters sometimes it is at a mini ing whether his constitutional rights were whether, mum majori as questionable Also, violated. See id. at 840. in sup- her asserts, ty “presented Fisher the appear plemental in statement record elderly hunting.” maj. ance of an man her deposition, Molly in Alexander incident, op. at 845. At the time of the noted that it appeared to her that Fisher deputies thought Fisher was a suicidal had knelt down picked something up others, threat to himself and not a hunter.1 firearm, chair, after dropping his and tri- pod. Second, comply Fisher did not with the

deputies’ requests place initial that he majority accurately lays out the test firearm and other carrying items he was qualified whether immunity applies to ground. Although on the it is unclear at an official’s actions. step The first point what Fisher was qualified able hear the immunity inquiry is to determine deputies’ requests, it is also unclear wheth- whether the conduct of ques- the officer in er, asserts, majority as the Fisher “readi- tion plaintiffs violated the constitutional ly” complied with the requests Katz, once he rights. 194, 200, Saucier 533 U.S. heard them. at Stephen See id. 840. Alex- 121 S.Ct. 150 L.Ed.2d 272 If ander stated in deposition his occurred, Fisher no constitutional violation then eventually obeyed the requests, officers’ the officer is entitled to qualified immuni- certainly but he portray Shaw, did not ty. Fisher’s See Vakilian v. 335 F.3d compliance “ready willing.” Cir.2003); For 516-18 City Mattox v. duct, majority 1. states that the defendants con- and there no depu- indication that the "they ceded that responding thought were not to a ties engage Fisher was about report of criminal conduct and specific premeditated nev- some criminal activi- suspected er engaged ty, that Fisher was in or deputies the record makes clear engaged Maj. about to be op. in a crime.” at suspect (reasonably) did in fact that Fisher 842. While deputies might it is true that pose general threat to himself and responding not report to a people. of criminal con- other 515, 520-24 Park, In this no seizure of Fisher oc- Forest Cir.1999). until the Alexanders drew of the facts of curred An examination (cid:127) him, on guns vio which occurred when the reveals that no constitutional this case majority carrying gun thus noticed he was and that the lation occurred point, across his shoulder. Until that step second reaching errs signal clearly deputies Fisher analysis- —whether Saucier, any way. liberty at was limited 533 U.S. established. See began approaching without being asked to do so and of his own accord. citizens grants Fourth Amendment The Only deputies when the drew their fire- unreasonable to be free from right the arms did the encounter transform from a offi by government and seizures searches consensual one into a seizure for purely IV; amend. Garde cials. U.S. Const. purposes the of the Fourth Amendment. Schubert, 303, 312-13 205 F.3d nhire v. Cir.2000). course, (6th dep considering that the Of that a seizure did Fisher claims deputies displayed de occur when the this when uties violated weapons, question the next is whether the him. The first issue to resolve is tained deputies’ the related actions deputies at the seizure and precise point which traditional pur Amendment were Under appropriate. Fisher for Fourth seized jurisprudence, police Fourth Amendment a poses. may temporarily officer detain individu between a law en every Not encounter investigation al for when he has reason a citizen constitutes officer and forcement suspicion that the individual is or is able Amendment. under the Fourth a seizure engaged activity. to be in criminal about instance, be a consensual encounter For Ohio, 1, 20-23, Terry v. 392 U.S. 88 which during an officer and citizen tween 1868, (1968); 20 L.Ed.2d 889 United S.Ct. voluntary cooperation officer seeks Patterson, 368, v. 340 F.3d 370 States seizure, and the the citizen is not from Cir.2003). majority interprets this possess any suspicion not officer need police juris that a officer—in test to mean activity in criminal engaging the citizen is crime, not a dictions in suicide is to initiate such an encounter. United here, Sage, 31 Ohio the case State v. is 530, 533 305 F.3d Chapman, States (1987)— 173, 343, 510 N.E.2d St.3d Cir.2002). pur for the A seizure occurs investigatory stop may not conduct an when, only pose of the Fourth Amendment a reasonable an individual when he has circum into account all of the “taking only that the individual is about encounter, po surrounding stances (but engage in an to commit suicide ‘have communicated to lice conduct would this in activity). Applying actual criminal not at person a reasonable that he was Terry present terpretation ignore police presence liberty to ” deputies need majority holds Florida v. Bos go about his business.’ Fisher. I probable cause to detain ed tick, 429, 437, 501 U.S. S.Ct. disagree. (1991) Michigan v. (quoting L.Ed.2d 389 from this Chesternut, 567, 569, majority relies on cases 486 U.S. (1988)). that, indicating An and other circuits before exam 100 L.Ed.2d having detaining suspected an individual an officer draws ple of a seizure is when medical emergency illness for an States mental weapon on citizen. See United involuntarily hospitaliza- Mendenhall, 544, 554, 100 or for S.Ct. evaluation 446 U.S. tion, must have officer 64 L.Ed.2d minutes, cause to believe individual is a episode only whole lasted five See, e.g., threat to himself others. by the time of Fisher’s medical emergency, Oullette, Monday v. deputies yet had not decided to detain (6th Cir.1997) (“The Fourth Amendment psychiatric for a They evaluation. requires an seizing detaining official merely securing begin- scene and person psychiatric for a evaluation to have ning investigate such whether a deten- person cause to believe that the warranted, tion would have been but the others”). dangerous to himself or investigation completed was never because First, inapposite These cases are here. of Fisher’s unfortunate medical incident. no there is indication that Probable cause required was not to con- seized Fisher to detain him until he re- duct temporary investigation and de- Rather, psychiatric ceived a evaluation. tention. the record shows that mo- In Monday, this court analogized a dan mentarily detained Fisher to ensure that gerous mental condition “to the role of not a threat to them and then to activity criminal in traditional Fourth question him. Stephen As Alexander ex- analysis.” Amendment 118 F.3d at 1102. plained, he trying was majority reads Monday requiring down, suspect to lie the handcuff the that detaining “officers an individual be suspect safety, stand Mr. for officer lieved to be suicidal must have ‘probable up, get Fisher him off the railroad track cause to believe that person danger is and over to the cruiser I where could ” ous to himself or Op. others.’ See at 843 pat Mr. Fisher down weapons and for 1102). (quoting Monday, 118 F.3d at This ascertain what going on. Mr. If precise is not a reading of Monday, where Fisher awas suicide risk and I felt he if the court set out probable cause as the inwas a mind set where he could be of standard for officials seizing detaining others, risk to himself or I right had the person evaluation, but, a for a psychiatric under Ohio statute2 to take Mr. Fisher contrary intimations, to the majority’s into protective custody. not hold that officers probable must have added.) (Emphasis words, In other every cause to detain individual believed to temporarily detained Fisher be suicidal. 118 F.3d at Crucially, 1102. order probable determine whether allegedly plaintiff suicidal in Monday cause existed to detain him further or hos- did not have a weapon posed a threat pitalize him pending psychiatric a evalua- himself, only to not to others. Id. at 1101. tion. majority concedes that “[t]he contrast, many of those individuals who seizure in specifically this case was not are about to commit certainly suicide purposes professional of a psychiatric eval- a dangerous condition, mental one that uation,” but states that this difference poses a threat to both themselves and from Monday maj. is of no effect. op. See anyone See, vicinity. else in their e.g., Bell at 846. I disagree. Stephen As Alexander Irwin, (7th 637, 321 F.3d 639-40 explained, Cir. only Mr. Fisher was a suicide if 2003) risk, (noting person that a who had made he could be a risk to himself or if others, suicidal wielding threats while would the Ohio knives was giving statute Alex- ander right hospitalize danger to both pres Fisher himself and others invol- ent). untarily apply such that logic cause The same that forms the basis necessary. would be happened, As it for the Monday court’s analogy of “dan- grants § Ohio police Rev.Code 5122.10 they offi- viduals have reason to believe are men- hospitalize cers the involuntarily tally indi- ill. doan, 398, Cir.2003); criminal ac see eondition[s]” mental gerous Sokolow, 1, if a officer also United States U.S. tivity suggests also (1989) suspicion individ a reasonable 109 S.Ct. 104 L.Ed.2d 1 has way poses, a risk to ual is suicidal (noting suspicion that reasonable “is obvi others, Terry stop of may conduct a ously demanding than ... less if suicide is not individual even cause”). jurisdiction. Monday, in that crime In this the Alexanders —who con 1102; States v. Wal 118 F.3d at United ducted the seizure of Fisher—-had rea Cir.1989) (hold lace, sonable Fisher was about that, safety of in order to secure the ing They dispatch commit suicide. received a present, all others individual and indicating sitting that a man was on the and frisk stop conduct a police officer railroad tracks with his feet tied to the has a reasonable an individual when he call tracks. The also indicated the individual is about to suspicion that man suicidal. arrived on When pos suicide and that the individual commit scene, they sitting on the saw firearm). fact, failing to ascer sesses folding tracks in a chair. Stephen railroad an individual is suicidal would tain whether that individuals committed suicide knew indeed,” since an police work “poor be Although manner. Fisher arose from dangerous potentially armed .individual began approaching depu his chair and present. only to himself but to others ties, they way knowing had no from Terry, 392 U.S. at (quoting Id. if tied their distance his feet had once been 1868). Therefore, in this case deputies tracks, reported. to the railroad Final only suspicion a reasonable needed carrying ly, they noticed Fisher was engage to in potentially was about Wallace, As in Bell and the fact firearm. activity. criminal person allegedly an suicidal of Application of the correct standard unfamiliar,,was with whom were car (not cause) suspicion reasonable reasonably led rying weapon could yields the conclusion present to the case that Fisher was a deputies to believe did not violate Fish- that the Alexanders only but also to danger not to himself rights. rea- er’s constitutional Whether others, including deputies themselves.3 support stop suspicion sonable Therefore, permissible it for them was depends upon case given frisk exists temporarily. detain circumstances, totality of known to force used next issue is whether the at the time of the seizure. See the officers stop conjunction Terry with the 535, F.3d 540 Ridge, States v. 329 United Supreme As the Court has warranted. Cir.2003). (6th Reasonable must noted, jurisprudence “Fourth Amendment objective particularized and be based on right to make long recognized has evidence, need not be as but the evidence necessarily car- investigatory stop an ... required or extensive as that reliable it it the to use some v. ries with with support probable cause. Weaver Sha- 731, (4th Cir.2003); dy, 349 F.3d 734-35 3. be noted that in none of the “men- It should 55, (2d by majority Mayas, 984 F.2d 55-56 Glass v. tal health seizure” cases cited Cir.1993); County Counseling Sherman v. Four support its conclusion that cause Cir.1993); Ctr., 397, (7th Goo evaluating dep- F.2d 399 987 is the correct standard for 960, County, 962-64 954 F.2d allegedly suicidal or den v. Howard uties' conduct did the Pirch, 681, (4th 1992); F.2d v. 677 mentally carry a Cir. Harris ill individual firearm. Barnard, Hunt, (8th 1982); 455 In re County Appx. 682-85 Cir. 106 Fed. Sullivan 1370, (D.C.Cir.1971). 215, (5th Cir.2004); Bailey v. F.2d 1372 Kenne- 217-18 coercion or degree physical suspect threat suicide when the was of considera- Connor, thereof to effect it.” Graham v. physical hospitalize ble size and refused to 396, 386, 1865, 109 S.Ct. U.S. voluntarily). himself particular L.Ed.2d 443 Whether As with the seizure inquiry, when as of force was the bounds of the use within sessing the degree reasonableness of the depends upon Fourth whether Amendment of force used in effectuating officers reasonably necessary cir- under the Terry stop, this court must consider the 395-97, id. at cumstances. See S.Ct. totality of the circumstances known question is whether the offi- “[T]he prior the use force. See ‘objectively cers’ actions are reasonable’ Graham, 397, 490 U.S. at 109 S.Ct. 1865. light of the facts and circumstances con- Importantly, we do evaluate the rea them, fronting regard to un- without their actually sonableness the force used derlying intent or motivation.” Id. at hindsight” by “with the vision of 20/20 degree 1865. The use of some S.Ct. considering facts of which the officers justified suspect force will be if “the poses were unaware but which later came to safety an immediate threat of the 396, 109 light. Id. at S.Ct. 1865. officers or others.” Id. at necessary 1865. When to ensure the safe- Here, justified officers, ty such force include drawing weapons and in handcuffing drawing weapon handcuffing both scene, Upon arriving Fisher. at the it was suspect. County Houston v. Clark reasonable for the to conclude 1-5, Deputy John Does Sheriff that a man they believed to suicidal be Cir.1999); 814-15 see also United in possession who was of a firearm posed Heath, States safety. immediate threat to their (“This Cir.2001) permits Circuit the use of deputies reasonably could deduce that force, guns, such as handcuffs and to effect such an individual regard would have little a stop when such a show of force is reason- consequences for the of his actions and able under the circumstances of the might possessed turn the firearm he on circumstances, stop.”). In certain Hence, them. reasonably necessary it was justified in fearing be for their own deputies for the weapons draw their on safety confronting person they when rea- initially. placed Fisher Even after Fisher sonably suicidal, believe to be and in these the firearm deputies visible to the on the circumstances the use of the force neces- ground, their further conduct was warrant- sary to neutralize this threat warranted. ed. The fact possessed that Fisher one Wallace, (holding 889 F.2d at 582 gave firearm deputies reason to believe police was reasonable for to restrain a possessed that he another. See United suspect in the course of effectuating a Butcher, 92-3987/4011, States v. Nos. Terry stop when had reason to be- 1993). July WL at *7 Cir. imminently lieve he was suicidal and Moreover, prior handcuffing Bell, armed); see also 321 F.3d at 639-40 Stephen Alexander saw ammunition in (finding police justified officers were Fisher’s overalls he believed could in using “bean-bag rounds” to take down weapon have been for another on Fisher’s suicide, man part who threatened be- person. That apparent it later became posed cause of the threat he to the offi- possess that Fisher did not cers); a second fire- Monday, 118 F.3d at 1104-05 cf. arm is of no (finding justified Again, Stephen moment. police using were stated, pepper spray to seize a Alexander suspect they trying the officers were probable cause to attempting “pat believe was weapons Mr. Fisher down for threat to the longer potential time was no on.” At the going what ascertain Fisher, it rea- deputies, his handcuffs were removed. handcuffed deputies words, then under the circumstances other in the circumstances sonable might sud- fear that he case, to them to scope known did not exceed the and harm second firearm denly reach for a Rather, stop. initial their actions reason- it was also Consequently, them. reasonably investiga- to their related continue train- necessary for them to ably indeed suicid- tion into whether Fisher was to hand- on Fisher and weapons ing necessary reasonably al and were to en- their own guarantee cuff him order safety. sure their own sure that even made safety. The conclusion, the facts of this case do hand- Fisher was manner majority’s conclusion that support discomfort. not cause him undue cuffed did presented evidence sufficient tempo- noted that the It also be should demonstrate that defendants violated his into ripen did not otherwise rary detention rights. qualified Fourth Amendment arrest, necessitated which would have at the immunity inquiry should thus end stop may ripen Terry cause. A majority step. agree I with the first While of time passage arrest due to the into an in grant- the district court did not err force used to to the nature of the or due summary Leary and Har- ing judgment Houston, 174 F.3d at stop. effectuate reasons, den, I would foregoing for the duration of respect 814. With judgment court’s also affirm the district an arrest if ripens into Terry stop, stop respect with to the Alexanders. than nec- longer an individual detain suspicious cir- investigate the essary to original stop. led to

cumstances Butler,

See United States Cir.2000). of force an degree investigatory to conduct an

officer uses necessary to ef- reasonably must be

stop otherwise, stop be- stop;

fectuate Aey, 319 Feathers v. comes an arrest. HUMPHRESS, Petitioner- Jackie (6th Cir.2003). Appellant, length of the detention In this Terry stop not demonstrate does America, UNITED STATES lasted The detention became arrest. Respondent-Appellee. minutes, depu- and the five approximately their inves- complete not able to ties were No. 03-5951. unfortunate of Fisher’s tigation because Appeals, United States Court for the manner emergency. As medical Sixth Circuit. stop, conducted the which the than was reason- they used no more force 23, 2004. Argued: Sept. necessary. trained ably 25, 2005. and Filed: Feb. Decided only until he was guns on Fisher handcuffed, handcuffs were neces- and the they rea-

sary who to ensure possession of anoth-

sonably feared was firearm, not harm them. As soon

er distressed physically

Fisher became

Case Details

Case Name: William E. "Buster" Fisher v. Tom E. Harden, in His Official Capacity as Sheriff of Morrow County, Ohio

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Date Published: Feb 25, 2005

Citation: 398 F.3d 837

Docket Number: 02-3996

Court Abbreviation: 6th Cir.