Baltz v. Shelley
| Decision Date | 03 March 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 84 C 2198.,84 C 2198. |
| Citation | 661 F. Supp. 169 |
| Parties | Linda BALTZ, Plaintiff, v. John H. SHELLEY, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
John P. DeRose, John P. DeRose & Assoc., Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff.
William W. Kurnik, Kurnik & Cipolla, Arlington Heights, Ill., Neil K. Quinn, Terri R. Olian, John J. Walsh III, Randall C. Monroe, Pretzel & Stouffer, Chtd., Chicago, Ill., for defendants.
In this civil rights case, the court must resolve difficult questions regarding the constitutional rights of an individual who allegedly experienced psychological difficulties that threatened the safety of herself and others. The plaintiff is Linda Baltz ("plaintiff"), a former deputy sheriff of Will County. In 1984, she filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1981) action in which she alleges that on February 23, 1983 certain defendants searched her home without a warrant and arrested her without probable cause in violation of her fourth amendment rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.1 Moreover, she alleges that the same defendants imprisoned her without a hearing in violation of her fourteenth amendment right against deprivation of her liberty without due process of law. In response to a motion to dismiss, Judge Aspen dismissed all claims against the County of Will on February 2, 1985. See Baltz v. County of Will, 609 F.Supp. 992, 1000 (N.D.Ill.1985). Now the remaining defendants move this court for summary judgment on their behalf pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Before addressing the merits of the defendants' motions, the court will review the relevant facts in this case.2
The plaintiff began working for the Will County Sheriff's Department ("Department") in April, 1976. In January, 1983, the Department reassigned her from the street division to the Joliet City Jail. On January 25, 1983, the jail warden and supervisor of the plaintiff, Sidney Edwards, prepared an employee warning notice regarding the plaintiff. In this notice, Edwards discussed a number of alleged inmate complaints concerning the plaintiff, including inmate claims that the plaintiff had taken photographs of certain inmates in their cells and sprayed mace in the jail in order to kill cockroaches. Edwards concluded in the notice that, in his opinion, action should be taken to evaluate the plaintiff's behavior.
The next day, January 26, 1983, Edwards and an assistant state's attorney met with two of the defendants — the Will County Sheriff John Shelley ("Sheriff Shelley") and Dr. William Hilger ("Dr. Hilger"), a private psychologist. The subject of the meeting was the plaintiff's potential need for psychological care. According to the deposition of Edwards and Dr. Hilger, at the meeting the other parties told Dr. Hilger that the plaintiff suffered from large weight loss3 and had been acting in an uncharacteristically irrational manner.4 The other parties further advised Dr. Hilger about the incidents raised in the employee warning notice and told Dr. Hilger that the plaintiff had relabeled the equipment lockers of other officers, refused to perform her duties in connection with showering female inmates and broken a relationship with an intimate male friend.5 The others were concerned because prior to the previous several months, the plaintiff had had an excellent work record.6 The others also expressed to Dr. Hilger the concern that if the hospital psychiatric unit admitted the plaintiff the Department could not employ her as a police officer for at least four years.7 After listening to the foregoing, Dr. Hilger made a number of recommendations including that a doctor perform a complete physical examination of the plaintiff.8 Dr. Hilger also told the others that he would phone the plaintiff and encourage her to see him.9
On January 27, 1983, the day after the meeting between Dr. Hilger, Sheriff Shelley and the others, the plaintiff met with Sheriff Shelley, Edwards and the assistant state's attorney at the sheriff's office. The plaintiff read and signed the employee warning notice prepared by Edwards. The others, after telling the plaintiff that she appeared depressed and malnourished, requested that she see a doctor for a physical examination and a psychologist for a psychological examination. According to the plaintiff, Sheriff Shelley told her she was suspended until she signed a paper stating she would see a psychologist.10
On January 28, 1983, the plaintiff received a letter from Sheriff Shelley informing her that he had placed her on ten-day suspension with pay for being inattentive to and inefficient in the performance of her duties and for neglecting or disobeying orders. In this letter, Sheriff Shelley ordered the plaintiff to see Dr. Hilger. If she failed to do so he would bring her before the Will County Merit Commission.11
Also on January 28, 1983, two days after his meeting with Sheriff Shelley and the rest, Dr. Hilger called the plaintiff at her home and urged her to see him for counseling. She refused. Subsequently, Dr. Hilger learned from a physician that the plaintiff suffered from menopausal syndrome.12 Consequently, Dr. Hilger phoned Sheriff Shelley on February 2, 1983 and advised him that some medical support existed for the concerns expressed at their January 26 meeting.13
On February 23, 1983, the plaintiff phoned Dr. Hilger and asked him if he would see her at her home. According to Dr. Hilger's deposition testimony, the plaintiff sounded hysterical and was crying that if Dr. Hilger did not see her she would kill herself.14 Dr. Hilger, concluding a "crisis situation" was at hand,15 called Sheriff Shelley, told him of the plaintiff's phone call and informed him that the plaintiff was possibly depressed and suicidal.16 Sheriff Shelley asked Dr. Hilger if Dr. Hilger would be willing to see the plaintiff.17 Dr. Hilger responded that he would consider a home visit if accompanied by two deputies.18 Sheriff Shelley selected the two other defendants, Deputy Craig Butkovick ("Butkovick") and Deputy Paul Kaupus ("Kaupus"). Butkovick and Kaupus picked Dr. Hilger up in a squad car and drove him to the plaintiff's home.19
Dr. Hilger, Butkovick and Kaupus arrived at approximately 10:30 p.m. The plaintiff invited them into her home although she questioned Dr. Hilger as to why the two deputies were present.20 While the deputies remained in the living room, Dr. Hilger attempted to speak to the plaintiff alone in the kitchen. Dr. Hilger's private discussion with the plaintiff led him to form the opinion that the plaintiff was having some serious emotional and mental problems and was severely intoxicated, depressed, suicidal and dangerous to herself and others.21 According to his deposition testimony, Dr. Hilger believed at that time that something had to be done immediately.22 After approximately three to four hours of conversation with the plaintiff, Dr. Hilger conveyed his opinion to Kaupus who in turn phoned Sheriff Shelley. After Kaupus gave him the phone, Dr. Hilger conveyed his impressions to Sheriff Shelley and recommended that the plaintiff be placed in some facility overnight with medical evaluation and treatment to follow the next morning. According to Dr. Hilger's deposition testimony, he recognized that procedures existed for committing the plaintiff to a mental-health facility23 but feared that doing so would preclude the plaintiff from working as a police officer for the next four years.24 After listening to Dr. Hilger, Sheriff Shelley told Dr. Hilger that he was ordering that the plaintiff be taken to jail.25
After his phone conversation with Sheriff Shelley, Dr. Hilger, according to the plaintiff's deposition testimony, told the plaintiff he wanted her to turn over her guns.26 When told they did not have a search warrant, the plaintiff refused. According to the plaintiff, Dr. Hilger then told the deputies to search her house and find her guns.27 Over the plaintiff's objection, Dr. Hilger and the two deputies then went in the plaintiff's bedroom and began their search of her drawers.28 After the search, Dr. Hilger told the plaintiff that she was going to jail.29 When asked why they were arresting her, Dr. Hilger gave no explanation.30 At approximately 3:00 a.m., Dr. Hilger and the two deputies transported the plaintiff to the jail where she remained until 2:30 p.m. on February 24, 1983, at which time she was admitted to a hospital.
The plaintiff instituted this action on March 15, 1984 in a four-count complaint naming the County of Will, Sheriff Shelley, Dr. Hilger, Butkovick and Kaupus as defendants. Counts I and II allege violations of § 1983. As interpreted by Judge Aspen, Count I alleges that the defendants' actions violated the plaintiff's fourth amendment rights against unreasonable searches and against arrest without probable cause. See Baltz, 609 F.Supp. at 996. Judge Aspen interpreted Count II to be a fourteenth amendment due process claim. Id. Counts III and IV allege pendent state-law claims of false arrest and imprisonment and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
In his opinion addressing the defendants' motion to dismiss, Judge Aspen dismissed the County of Will from the suit because the plaintiff's conclusory allegations of a county "policy" were insufficient to state a claim in light of the legal independence of the sheriff's office from the county. Id. at 995 (citing Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 125, § 13 (1967)). In addressing Sheriff Shelley's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's due process challenge to his psychological-testing policy, Judge Aspen dismissed any facial challenge to the policy because the plaintiff conceded the constitutionality of the psychological-testing requirement on its face.31 Id. at 996.
Judge Aspen denied, however, Sheriff Shelley's motion to dismiss the due process challenge to his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Kjk Const. Co., Inc.
...minds.'" Am. Pfauter, Ltd. v. Freeman Decorating Co./Freeman Co., 796 F.Supp. 347, 349 (N.D.Ill.1992) (quoting Baltz v. Shelley, 661 F.Supp. 169, 179 (N.D.Ill. 1987)). While the Rieger Affidavit is not inherently incredible, Rieger has not been deposed in this adversary proceeding. The Trus......
-
Riese v. St. Mary's Hosp. and Medical Center
...590 F.Supp. 1319, 1321; Sabo v. O'Bannon (E.D.Pa.1984) 586 F.Supp. 1132, 1140 disapproved on another point in Blatz v. Shelley (N.D.Ill.1987) 661 F.Supp. 169, 178, fn. 36; United States v. Leatherman (D.C.1983) 580 F.Supp. 977, 980 app. dism. and case remanded (D.C.Cir.1984) 729 F.2d 863). ......
-
Riese v. St. Mary's Hospital & Medical Center
...590 F.Supp. 1319, 1321; Sabo v. O'Bannon (E.D.Pa.1984) 586 F.Supp. 1132, 1140 disapproved on another point in Blatz v. Shelley (N.D.Ill.1987) 661 F.Supp. 169, 178, fn. 36; United States v. Leatherman (D.C.1983) 580 F.Supp. 977, 980 app. dism. and case remanded (D.C.Cir.1984) 729 F.2d 863). ......
-
Easter House v. Felder
...at 1004, 102 S.Ct. at 2786 (emphasis added); see Kufalk v. Hart, 610 F.Supp. 1178, 1184-85 (N.D.Ill.1985); see also Baltz v. Shelley, 661 F.Supp. 169, 175-76 (N.D.Ill.1987) ("encouragement or coercion" test of Blum and conspiracy approach of Tower interpreted as alternative routes to conclu......