Tinius v. Carroll County Sheriff Dept.
| Citation | 321 F.Supp.2d 1064 |
| Decision Date | 14 June 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. C03-3001-MWB.,C03-3001-MWB. |
| Parties | Scott L. TINIUS, Plaintiff, v. CARROLL COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT; Carroll County Sheriff; Doug Bass, individually and in his official capacity; John Doe Deputies, individually and in their official capacity; St. Anthony Regional Hospital Auxiliary, Inc.; Erin Klekot; David McCoy; Tammy Roetman; Cherokee Mental Health Institute; and, G. Skorey, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa |
J. Barton Goplerud, Ryan Edward Weese, Hudson, Mallaney & Shindler, PC, West Des Moines, IA, for Plaintiff.
William L Dawe, III, Hopkins & Huebner, Connie L. Diekema, Steven K Scharnberg, Finley Alt Smith Scharnberg Craig Hilmes & Gaffney, PC, Gordon E. Allen, Des Moines, IA, for Defendants.
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND .................................1067
A. Procedural Background ...................................1067
B. Factual Background ......................................1068
II. LEGAL ANALYSIS .............................................1071
A. Standards For Summary Judgment ..........................1071
B. The Sheriff Defendants' Motion For Summary Judgment .....1072
1. Substantive due process claim ........................1072
2. Fourth Amendment claim ...............................1074
a. Community caretaking function .....................1074
b. Qualified immunity ................................1076
i. Applicable standards ...........................1076
ii. Application of the standards ..................1077
3. False imprisonment claim .............................1079
4. Assault and battery ..................................1079
5. Intentional infliction of emotional distress .........1081
6. Invasion of privacy ..................................1081
7. Negligence ...........................................1084
C. The Hospital Defendants' Motion For Summary Judgment ....1085
1. Application of Iowa Code § 668.11 ....................1085
2. Applicability of EMTALA ..............................1087
a. The terms of EMTALA ...............................1087
b. Applicability of statute ..........................1088
III. CONCLUSION .................................................1089
Plaintiff Scott L. Tinius filed this lawsuit on January 2, 2003, against various state and county officials and employees. At the center of this lawsuit is Tinius's continued detention by various defendants following his being stopped by Carroll County Deputies. In Count I of his complaint, Tinius alleges that defendants Carroll County Sheriff Department, Carroll County Sheriff, Doug Bass and John Doe Deputies ("The Sheriff Defendants") violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by violating Tinius's rights to substantive due process of law by unlawfully detaining him. In Count II, Tinius alleges that the Sheriff Defendants violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by violating Tinius's rights under the Fourth Amendment to be free from unlawful seizures by unlawfully detaining him. In Count III, Tinius alleges a claim for false imprisonment against all named defendants. In Count IV, Tinius alleges a claim for assault and/or battery against all named defendants. In Count V, Tinius alleges a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress against all named defendants. In Count VI, Tinius alleges an invasion of privacy claim against all named defendants. In Count VII, Tinius alleges a negligence claim against all named defendants. Tinius contends that the defendants owed a duty to him to protect his constitutional rights which they breached by unlawfully detaining him and subjecting him to unwanted physical intrusion.
The Sheriff Defendants filed for summary judgment on December 24, 2003. On January 8, 2004, defendants St. Anthony Regional Hospital Auxiliary, Inc., Erin Klekot, and Tammy Roetman ("The Hospital Defendants") filed for summary judgment. After obtaining extensions of time, plaintiff Tinius filed timely resistances to defendants' motions for summary judgment.
Before turning to a legal analysis of the motions for summary judgment, the court must first identify the standards for disposition of a motion for summary judgment, as well as the undisputed factual background of this case.
The record reveals that the following facts are undisputed. On January 3, 2001, plaintiff Tinius drove from Marshalltown, Iowa, through Carroll County, Iowa. Tinius's pickup truck ran out of gas in Carroll County. Tinius was not wearing a coat. He was dressed in a sweatshirt, pants and loafers. Tinius was not carrying any identification. On January 3, 2001, Tinius had quite a bit going on in his life and he believes he was suffering from depression. After his pickup truck ran out of gas, he walked to a nearby farmhouse.
On the afternoon of January 3, 2001, Carroll County Sheriff Douglas Bass, Carroll County Deputy Sheriff William Croghan, and Carroll County Deputy Sheriff David Potthoff responded to a call of a reported burglary. George Johnston, the person who reported the incident, indicated that he had returned home from a funeral and found someone in the house.1 Johnston also reported that the man was traveling on foot. Sheriff Bass and Deputies Croghan and Potthoff responded to the report by traveling in the direction of the residence of the reported burglary. Deputy Potthoff observed a man walking on the highway in that immediate area. Deputy Potthoff followed the man traveling on foot, while Sheriff Bass and Deputy Croghan went to the residence where the incident took place to investigate at the scene.
Deputy Potthoff approached the man traveling on foot, who was later identified as plaintiff Scott Tinius, exited his patrol car, and asked Tinius for his name and what he was doing. Tinius replied that he was "just walking down the road." Plaintiff's Suppl. App. at 5. Tinius refused to give Deputy Potthoff his name. Tinius was not wearing a coat and not carrying any identification. There is a dispute about what transpired next. Deputy Potthoff asserts that he continued for thirty minutes to ask Tinius questions but Tinius was uncooperative and incapable of carrying on a normal conversation. Tinius appeared to Deputy Potthoff to be intoxicated from alcohol or a controlled substance. Deputy Potthoff alleges that during this entire time Tinius never identified himself and that the only response Deputy Potthoff received during his questioning of Tinius was: "I don't think You need to know." Sheriff Defendants' App. at 22. On the other hand, Tinius asserts that although he initially didn't give Deputy Potthoff his name, he subsequently told the deputy his name and answered the deputy's other questions. Tinius further contends that he interacted with Deputy Potthoff for only about 5 minutes before being handcuffed and placed in the front seat of Deputy Potthoff's patrol car. Tinius also contends that he seemed fine and had not taken any drugs on that day.
Deputy Potthoff learned from Sheriff Bass and Deputy Croghan that under Iowa law a burglary had not occurred at the residence because there had been no forcible entry to the premises. Thus, Deputy Potthoff did not suspect Tinius of committing any crimes at this point. Deputy Potthoff, however, determined that Tinius, for his own safety and the safety of others, could not remain at large. At some point, Deputy Croghan arrived at the scene where Tinius and Deputy Potthoff were located. In Deputy Croghan's view, Tinius was "bonkers" and "totally out of it." Sheriff Defendants' App. at 31. From Deputy Croghan's prospective, Tinius had no idea where he was or what he was doing. In addition, Deputy Croghan though that Tinius was inappropriately dressed because he had no coat on and it was the beginning of January.
Tinius was handcuffed and placed in the front seat of Deputy Potthoff's patrol car. Tinius was told that he was not under arrest, but was being placed in handcuffs for his own safety and the safety of Deputy Potthoff. Tinius was then transported to St. Anthony Regional Hospital because the deputies felt that he was a danger to himself and to others. There is a dispute about what transpired during the ride to the hospital. Deputy Potthoff asserts that he continued to try to learn Tinius's identity but Tinius continued to be uncooperative. Tinius, on the other hand, asserts that he identified himself to Deputy Potthoff in the patrol car.
While Deputy Potthoff was engaged with Tinius, Deputy Croghan was tending to an abandoned vehicle not far from where Tinius was found. The abandoned vehicle, a pickup truck, which was out of gas, was Tinius's father's and had been driven by Tinius at some point. After a wrecker came to tow the pickup truck, Deputy Croghan met up with Deputy Potthoff at the hospital. Deputy Potthoff and Tinius had reached the hospital emergency room and were waiting there when Deputy Croghan arrived.
Tinius learned that he was being transported to the hospital when the patrol car pulled up the hospital's doors. Deputy Potthoff turned Tinius over to the care of the hospital staff but he and Deputy Croghan remained at the hospital to act, in his words, as a "security officer." Sheriff Defendants' App. at 23. The exits to the emergency room were blocked by the deputies who were present.
At the hospital, Tinius, who remained handcuffed, was first presented to defendant Tamara Roetman, an emergency room nurse. When Tinius arrived, Roetman observed him in an agitated state. Tinius was pacing about the room. His gate was steady and he was not staggering. Roetman was able to take Tinius's pulse, respiration, temperature...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miller v. Idaho State Patrol
...accepting a suspect into county jail); Meyer v. Woodward, 617 F.Supp.2d 554, 565 (E.D.Mich.2008) ; Tinius v. Carroll Cnty. Sheriff Dep't, 321 F.Supp.2d 1064, 1075–76 (N.D.Iowa 2004) (upholding a catheterization performed by hospital personnel on a person detained under the police community-......
-
Cook v. Olathe Med. Ctr. Inc.
...990 F.Supp. 924 (W.D.Mich.1996); 30 Sullivan v. Bornemann, 384 F.3d 372, 376–77 (7th Cir.2004);31 and Tinius v. Carroll County Sheriff's Dept., 321 F.Supp.2d 1064 (N.D.Iowa 2004).32 Each of those cases involved distinguishing facts; none compel a conclusion that on the facts of this case, d......
-
Spaight v. Shah-Hosseini, C.A. No. PC 04-6802 (R.I. Super 12/30/2009)
...to suffer abdominal pain. 13. See, e.g., Bendiburg v. Dempsey, 909 F.2d 463, 468 (11th Cir. 1990); Tinius v. Carroll County Sheriff Dep't, 321 F. Supp. 2d 1064, 1086-1087 (D. Iowa 2004); Kennedy v. Parrott, 243 N.C. 355, 363, 90 S.E.2d 754, 760 (N.C. 1953); Rogers v. Lumbermens Mutual Casua......
-
Ickes v. Borough of Bedford
...to bodily privacy, particularly as to searches viewed or conducted by members of the opposite sex”); Tinius v. Carroll County Sheriff Dept., 321 F.Supp.2d 1064, 1073–1079 (N.D.Iowa 2004) (recognizing state actors' assistance in effecting an involuntary catheterization as a “seizure” subject......
-
Tinius v. Carroll County Sheriff Dept.
...District Court INVOLUNRARY TREATMENT INFORMED CONSENT Tinius v. Carroll County Sheriff Dept., 321 F.Supp.2d 1064 (N.D.Iowa 2004). A detainee filed a [section] 1983 action alleging that deputy sheriffs unlawfully detained him, and that medical procedures were performed on him without his con......
-
Tinius v. Carroll County Sheriff Dept.
...District Court MEDICAL CARE PROTECTION FALSE IMPRISONMENT Tinius v. Carroll County Sheriff Dept., 321 F.Supp.2d 1064 (N.D.Iowa 2004). A detainee filed a [section] 1983 action alleging that deputy sheriffs unlawfully detained him, and that medical procedures were performed on him without his......
-
Tinius v. Carroll County Sheriff Dept.
...District Court FALSE IMPRISONMENT Tinius v. Carroll County Sheriff Dept., 321 F.Supp.2d 1064 (N.D.Iowa 2004). A detainee filed a [section] 1983 action alleging that deputy sheriffs unlawfully detained him, and that medical procedures were performed on him without his consent. The district c......