Turner v. City of Champaign

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Fourth Amendment
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 19-3446
Decision Date: 
November 3, 2020
Federal District: 
C.D. Ill.
Holding: 
Affirmed

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendants-police officials’ motion for summary judgment in plaintiff’s section 1983 action alleging that defendants violated decedent's 4th Amendment rights by using excessive force when causing decedent’s death during encounter in which defendants attempted to detain decedent to protect himself and others and to take decedent to hospital for evaluation of his mental heath. On day of encounter in 2016, defendant police-officer held belief since 2010 that decedent had mental health problems, and decedent seemed disorientated and incoherent when officer approached decedent. After decedent began to flee, three officers gave chase and eventually subdued decedent by grabbing his shoulder, bringing him to ground, placing him in handcuffs and, after decedent continued to struggle, wrapping his legs. Shortly after decedent’s legs were subdued, officers determined that decedent was not breathing and attempted CPR, but decedent eventually died. Autopsy determined that decedent died from cardiac arrhythmia, and medical evidence showed no other cause of death that related to claim of excessive force. Defendants acted legally to detain decedent and used reasonable force in response to decedent’s continued resistance. Also, defendants were entitled to qualified immunity, since defendants’ conduct was similar to use of force displayed in Estate of Philips, 123 F.3d 586, during similar encounter with mentally ill person. Too, while defendants’ use of force, when combined with decedent’s other health problems, resulted in decedent’s death, defendants’ use of force did not constitute “deadly force,” because force used by defendants did not carry substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily harm. Defendants were also entitled to absolute immunity under section 4-102 of Ill. Tort Immunity Act with respect to plaintiff’s state-law claims, since defendants were attempting to obtain mental health detention of decedent at time of encounter.