Police Department Not Liable For Death Of Man In Police Custody When No Constitutional Rights Were Violated

In Tatum v. City and County of San Francisco (2006 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3901, 06 Cal.Daily Op. Serv. 2738, C.A.9 (Cal.), Apr. 3, 2006), the United States Court of Appeals considered a civil rights and wrongful death claim brought by the mother of a man who died in police custody, in which she claimed that the man’s constitutional rights were violated because he was wrongfully arrested, subjected to excessive force, and died as a result.

The Court found that because the police officers’ actions throughout the arrest and the events leading up to it were reasonable under the circumstances, no constitutional violation had occurred, and the police were therefore not liable for the death.

Facts

While waiting for a stolen car to be towed, San Francisco Police Officer Leslie Smith (“Officer Smith”) observed Glenn Fullard (“Fullard”) across the street, kicking the door of the Tenderloin Police Station. Officer Smith yelled at Fullard to stop kicking the door, and when he did not, Officer Smith pulled Fullard away from the door and asked him what he was doing. Fullard did not respond and began walking away from the station. Shortly thereafter, Fullard resumed the kicking, and based on his odd behavior, bloodshot eyes, perspiration and slurred speech, Officer Smith suspected that he was under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

After Fullard did not comply with a request to show identification, Officer Smith attempted to handcuff him. When Fullard continued to struggle, Officer Smith pushed him to the ground and, with other officers’ assistance, handcuffed him. When officers noticed that Fullard’s eyes were bulging and his breathing had become shallow, they summoned an ambulance and monitored his condition but did not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). When paramedics arrived, they could not detect Fullard’s pulse or breathing and pronounced him dead at the scene. The coroner ruled cocaine toxicity as the cause of death.

Fullard’s mother, Verlie Tatum (“Tatum”), filed a lawsuit in San Francisco Superior Court, against the officers, their supervisors, the police department and the City and County of San Francisco (“Defendants”), seeking damages under California law, and alleging that Fullard’s wrongful death was caused by violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Because of the federal questions, Defendants moved the case to federal district court, which granted summary judgment on all claims to the Defendants. Tatum appealed.

Decision

The appellate court said that to recover damages, Tatum needed to prove by a preponderance of evidence that Defendants deprived Fullard of a constitutional right while acting under color of state law. The facts showed otherwise, the Court said.

It first rejected Tatum’s claim that the officers did not have probable cause to believe that Fullard had committed a crime. In fact, Fullard’s behavior and appearance created a fair probability that he was under the influence of a controlled substance, a crime under California law.

It also found the officers’ use of force, a measured control hold, reasonable in light of Fullard’s physical struggle to avoid arrest. In any event, the Court said, the facts showed that cocaine toxicity, not the officers’ use of force, caused Fullard’s death.

Finally, the officers’ failure to perform CPR on Fullard did not violate his constitutional rights, the Court found. It noted that officers had promptly summoned medical assistance and monitored his condition, and the Constitution required them to do no more.

“Because the police conduct in this case did not deprive Fullard of a constitutional right, Tatum may not hold the arresting officers, their supervisors, or the City and County of San Francisco liable for the events leading up to Fullard’s death,” the Court concluded.

The trial court’s judgment was affirmed.

Legal Alert Email Disclaimer

Legal Alerts are published by Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard as a timely reporting service to alert clients and other friends of recent changes in case law, opinions or codes. This alert does not represent the legal opinion of the firm or any member of the firm on the issues described, and the information contained in this publication should not be construed as legal advice. Should further analysis or explanation of the subject matter be required, please contact the attorney with whom you normally consult.