Pretrial detention.

PositionAlkire v. Irving - Bozeman v. Orum - Calderon-Ortiz v. Laboy-Alvarado - Frye v. Pettis County Sheriff Dept

32. Pretrial Detention U.S. Appeals Court Alkire v. Irving, 305 F.3d 456 (6th Cir. 2002). An arrestee brought a [section] 1983 action RELEASE against a sheriff, county, and county judge, alleging violation of his Fourth, Thirteenth and INITIAL Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court APPEARANCE denied the arrestee's motion for class certification and granted summary judgment for the defendants on the remaining issues. The appeals court affirmed in part, and reversed and remanded in part. The appeals court held that the Sheriff's policy of detaining persons in the county jail until their initial appearance was the type of "policy or custom" under which the county could be held liable under [section] 1983. As the result of the policy, persons arrested without warrants from late Friday afternoon through Sunday morning would not likely appear in court before Tuesday morning, in violation of a requirement that a probable cause hearing be held within 48 hours of a warrantless arrest. The appeals court held that the county, sheriff and county clerk's office had quasi-judicial immunity and qualified immunity from [section] 1983 liability for failing to allow credit toward fines and costs for time served. (Holmes County Jail, Ohio) U.S. District Court Bozeman v. Orum, 199 F.Supp.2d 1216 (M.D.Ala. 2002). The representative of the estate of a USE OF FORCE pretrial detainee brought a [section] 1983 action against a sheriff and officials at a county MEDICAL CARE detention facility, alleging that the detainee's death was the result constitutional violations. The district court held that detention officers' use of force to restrain the detainee did not violate his Fourteenth Amendment right against the use of excessive force, even though the officers threatened to "kick" the detainee's "ass." The officers apparently punched or slapped the detainee, and the detainee died as the result of the officers' actions, but the court found that some level of force was necessary to restore order where the detainee was apparently undergoing a mental breakdown in his cell. The court held that nurses at the detention facility were not deliberately indifferent to the serious medical needs of the detainee when they failed to obtain treatment and medication upon learning that the detainee had been evaluated for mental health problems and prescribed medication in the past. The court noted that the nurses had no knowledge during intake beyond a "slight flag" of past evaluations for mental illness and that the detainee had medication to help him "rest." The court also found that the failure of the detention facility to implement a policy requiring staff to follow up on inmates who had acknowledged past mental health problems or evaluations for mental health problems, did not violate the detainee's Fourteenth Amendment right to adequate medical care. The court held that municipal jails are not required to provide on-site psychiatric care for their inmates, and that the detention facility was not required to train its officers in diagnosing or treating mental illness. According to the court, the facility provided adequate training in the proper use of deadly force, including warnings on the dangers of positional asphyxia, and was therefore not liable under [section] 1983 for failing to supervise staff. The court found that summary judgment in favor of the county was precluded by a genuine issue of material fact on the allegation that officers were deliberately indifferent to the medical needs of the detainee by failing to...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT