Robinson v. Pack

• Decision Date: 18 June 2009
• Docket Number: No. 34340.,34340.
• Citation: 679 S.E.2d 660
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: Euna ROBINSON, Plaintiff Below, Appellee v. James PACK, Defendant Below, Appellant.

679 S.E.2d 660

Euna ROBINSON, Plaintiff Below, Appellee v. James PACK, Defendant Below, Appellant.

No. 34340.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted April 7, 2009.

Decided June 18, 2009.

Syllabus by the Court

1. "The appellate standard of review of questions of law answered and certified by a circuit court is de novo." Syl. Pt. 1, Gallapoo v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 197 W.Va. 172, 475 S.E.2d 172 (1996).

2. A circuit court's denial of summary judgment that is predicated on qualified immunity is an interlocutory ruling which is subject to immediate appeal under the "collateral order" doctrine.

3. "Government officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Syllabus, in part, Bennett v. Coffman, 178 W.Va. 500, 361 S.E.2d 465 (1987).

4. The subjective motivations of a police officer are not relevant to a determination of whether qualified immunity exists in connection with allegations of an unreasonable search and seizure, an unlawful detention, or the use of excessive force.

5. Under the holding of Ashcroft v. Iqbal, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009), a supervising police officer may not be held liable for the wrongful actions of his or her subordinate officers in connection with an alleged civil rights violation because a supervising police officer is only liable for his or her own conduct and not that of his/her subordinates.

Anthony F. Serreno, Charleston, WV, for the Plaintiff Below.

Jeffrey K. Phillips, Teresa A. Kleeh, Steptoe & Johnson, PLLC, Charleston, WV, for the Defendant Below.

McHUGH, Justice:

This case is before us on certified questions and presents issues regarding the availability of qualified immunity for police officers arising from the alleged unlawful arrest and detention of Appellee Euna Robinson following a 911 dispatch. Initially, we are asked to determine whether a trial court's ruling denying the defense of qualified immunity to a government official is subject to interlocutory appeal. Also presented for our resolution is the issue of whether, as part of an immunity analysis, the subjective motivations of law enforcement officers are relevant when examining the reasonableness of actions taken in connection with allegations of unreasonable search and seizure, unlawful detention, and the use of excessive force. Finally, we are asked to decide whether a supervising police officer can be held civilly liable for the wrongful conduct of his or her subordinate officers.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

Appellee represents that she has been suffering from and seeking help for mental illness since 1970. On April 4, 2002, Ms. Robinson telephoned Logan-Mingo Mental Health, indicating that she was in distress and needed help. Believing that Ms. Robinson intended to harm herself, Tina Christenson, an employee of Logan-Mingo Mental Health, called a Mingo County 911 dispatcher and requested assistance for Appellee.¹ In response to this call, the 911 center dispatched deputies from the Mingo County Sheriff's Department, including Appellant James Pack, the chief deputy (hereinafter sometimes referred to as "Chief Pack").

According to the circuit court, the following undisputed facts reflect the chain of events that ensued when the police arrived at Ms. Robinson's residence:

[T]he police were confronted with a plaintiff [Ms. Robinson] who ignored repeated verbal requests to appear. The deputies advised plaintiff that they were there to check on her. The plaintiff never responded to the deputies' requests to unlock her front or back door.

Upon receiving no response from plaintiff, deputies, including Chief Pack, entered plaintiff's residence to ensure she was not in danger. Plaintiff claims Chief Pack directed the responding deputies to remove plaintiff from the residence. Plaintiff continued to refuse to appear or respond to their inquiries.

Plaintiff hid in a small crawlspace in her residence and refused to respond to officers' requests to come out. Plaintiff had been drinking alcohol to excess around the time of the incident and kept multiple loaded guns, swords, and knives in her residence. The deputies saw evidence of the drinking and some of the weapons. Being unable to visualize plaintiff to ensure she was not in possession of a weapon, a deputy advised that a police canine would be released if plaintiff did not show herself. Again, plaintiff did not respond. The canine located plaintiff in the attic's crawlspace, where she was hiding underneath comforters and blankets.

The dog, handled by a deputy not a defendant in this case, allegedly bit plaintiff on the head. However, plaintiff continued to refuse to leave the crawlspace or demonstrate that she did not possess a weapon. Deputies, not including Chief Pack, entered the tight quarters of the crawl space, but were unable to remove the plaintiff. When the deputies backed out of the crawl space, the plaintiff was told pepper spray would be administered if she did not show she was not in possession of a weapon and leave the crawl space. Once again, the plaintiff refused to respond. A deputy directed pepper spray into the crawlspace, resulting in the successful extrication of plaintiff. She was then handcuffed and taken to an awaiting ambulance. Notably, defendant James Pack did not arrest the plaintiff or touch her in any offensive or harmful way on April 4, 2002.

Following Appellee's arrest, she was taken to the sheriff's office to await a mental hygiene evaluation. The examining physician, Dr. Carlos Rivas, concluded that Ms. Robinson "was mentally ill and [was] a danger to herself or others." Dr. Rivas diagnosed Appellee as suffering from a major depressive disorder, displaying psychotic features, having suicidal ideations, and being a substance abuser. Despite the determination by Dr. Rivas that Appellee was mentally ill and likely to cause harm to herself or others, the Mental Hygiene Commissioner decided that Ms. Robinson did not require hospitalization and that she could be managed with outpatient care.

On April 3, 2003, Appellee instituted a civil action against Chief Pack, additional police officers, and various other law enforcement-related entities.² Ms. Robinson asserted that she was subjected to unlawful detention, excessive force, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and abuse of process in connection with the events that transpired on April 4, 2002. Through a motion for summary judgment filed on March 1, 2006, Chief Pack argued his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law based on the lawful nature of the actions taken by the police officers and his lack of personal involvement with the use of the police canine, the pepper spray, or the presentment of Ms. Robinson to the mental hygiene commissioner.³ In addition, Chief Pack asserted his entitlement to both qualified and statutory immunity based on his employment status as a government official.⁴

In responding to Appellant's motion for summary judgment, Ms. Robinson argued that a jury should decide if the motivation for the events surrounding her arrest on April 4, 2002, was a telephone call that she made earlier that same day, during which she informed Chief Pack's wife of an affair between herself and Appellant. Based on its determination that the lawfulness of Appellee's arrest was dependent upon the motivations of Chief Pack, the trial court denied Appellant's motion for summary judgment.⁵

Through its order of March 28, 2008, the Circuit Court of Kanawha County certified the following three questions to this Court:

1. Is a government official entitled to an immediate appeal of the denial of a motion for summary judgment that is based upon qualified immunity?

2. Are the alleged subjective motivations of a police officer relevant to an analysis of the reasonableness of an entry into a residence, the detention of the occupant of the residence, and the alleged use of force upon the occupant?

3. Is a supervising police officer civilly liable for the alleged wrongful conduct of his or her subordinate officers?

With regard to each of the certified questions, the trial court indicated an affirmative response. By order dated September 25, 2008, this Court accepted the certified questions and docketed the matter for resolution.

II. Standard of Review

As we previously recognized in syllabus point one of Gallapoo v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 197 W.Va. 172, 475 S.E.2d 172 (1996), "[t]he appellate standard of review of questions of law answered and certified by a circuit court is de novo." We proceed to address the questions certified to us from the circuit court.

III. Discussion

A. Immediate Appeal

The first question presented by the certification order addresses the procedural issue of whether a trial court's denial of qualified immunity is subject to immediate appeal. The trial court and Appellant both view a ruling on the availability of qualified immunity as falling within that narrow category of orders that are subject to permissible interlocutory appeal. Ms. Robinson takes a converse position, arguing that immediate appeal is not permitted because this Court has not expressly ruled in favor of immediate appeal from an adverse ruling on the issue of immunity.

In Hutchison v. City of Huntington, 198 W.Va. 139, 479 S.E.2d 649 (1996), an opinion authored by Justice Cleckley, this Court acknowledged the need for early resolution of immunity rulings: "We agree with the United States Supreme Court to the extent it has encouraged, if not mandated, that claims of immunities, where ripe for disposition, should be summarily decided before trial." Id. at 147, 479 S.E.2d at 657. Although we observed in Hutchison that the high court views pretrial immunity rulings as "immediately appealable under the...