"Protecting one's employment interests while an inmate chokes to death would exemplify deliberate indifference to serious medical needs..."
Melvin Bradich was arrested on an outstanding warrant for failure to appear on driving under the influence charge. Bradich was known at the Chicago police department lock up as this was his 24th arrest. He was intoxicated at the time. Furthermore, the arrest was a bench warrant for driving under the influence. He was booked placed into a cell pending a hearing the next day. Up to this point all was normal then things take an unusual twist. Within 90 minutes Bradich was dead as a result of hanging himself.
Officers or, medical personnel could not revive him and he died in the cell. The decedent's family sued for violation of his rights in that the City of Chicago failed to protect him from killing himself. The United States District Court of Northern Illinois granted summary judgment in the case basing its ruling that the estate had not met the standard of deliberant indifference. The estate appealed to the United States 7th District Court of Appeals.
The court ruled many of the estates claims were unfounded. The arresting officers did not violate any of Bradrich's rights when he was taken into custody on the warrant nor when the officers turned him over to the detention facility. Jail personnel did not display deliberate indifference when they placed him into a regular cell not under a suicide watch or having him evaluated by a physician. Bradrich had been arrested many times before and had not exhibited any signs of suicidal tendencies.
The estate believed that intoxication increased the chance of suicide occurring. They could offer no medical or psychiatric evidence to substantiate this position at the time. However, Bradich may have also taken barbiturates as supported by the fact that he was in possession of pills in his pockets. The autopsy revealed no drugs other than the alcohol. No testimony was introduced that would support this theory.
The court noted that cities are not vicariously liable under a 42 U.S.C. 1983 for employee errors. In this case policies were not followed. Rules required close monitoring of cells with intoxicated inmates. The record indicated that the employees were playing cards and watching television instead of the monitors. The policies were not inadequate, but the follow through was. The estate had no problem with this. They contended that the City did not ensure that all of the employees adhered to policy at all times.
The estate contended that the actions of the officers after the hanging were more apt to show liability. Officers Hilbring, Simmons, and Walker were on duty at the time of the incident. Simmons and Walker were deposed and noticed that Bradich was hanging in the cell about 6:15 and ran to his cell. At the time Bradich appeared to be alive. They could not open the door due to the way that Bradich had tied the ligature. Simmons went to the kitchen and obtained a knife to cut the ligature allowing the officers to open the door. In that time frame Captain Hilbring, the shift supervisor, responded to the scene. Simmons shouted and slapped Bradich in an attempt to revive him. Only Hilbring had CPR training. Slapping, shaking, and shouting are not CPR techniques. Hilbring should have used his training to begin CPR.
Only after the efforts failed did Walker call for medical. An ambulance was dispatched at 6:25 pm. They arrived at 6:34 and Bradich was dead. The time periods could be wrong. The court could only assume that the officers took ten minutes to summon help. The court noted in the mean time they wasted most of that.
They said they were trying to save Bradich during the time. The district court judge felt the officers were not deliberately indifferent but were doing their best.
On appeal the court asked:
"Why did it take all three officers to provide unhelpful assistance? Two might have done what they could, while the third phoned for help (which would take only a minute) and then rejoined the others. Why did two officers who lacked CPR training think that they should shout at a hanging prisoner rather than call for help? Why did the officer with CPR training not use his skills? The Estate's preferred answer is that the three officers are dissembling about their activities during the critical ten minutes. As the Estate sees things, delay in calling for outside assistance was a deliberate choice, not a side effect of devoted rescue attempts. (413 F.3d 688; 2005 U.S. App)"
Good question. The courts can be severe in their wording to law enforcement when we do not follow procedure. There were other problems brought out. The medical responders found that the decedent was wearing the t-shirt the officers stated was the ligature used. How could that be? The estate contended that the officers disposed of the actual ligature because they had allowed Bradich to wear 3 shirts into the cell - a clear policy violation. Two of them were used to make the ligature. There were changes made to the log book during the minutes used to call for emergency personnel. The estate contended that they may have erased or rearranged entries to protect themselves. The court, again with a cutting edge, stated: "Protecting one's employment interests while an inmate chokes to death would exemplify deliberate indifference to serious medical needs... If the Estate is right about what happened during the ten minutes, the lockup keepers are not entitled to qualified immunity: no reasonable officer could think that the Constitution allowed him to cover up his own misconduct at the expense of a prisoner's life. (413 F.3d 688; 2005 U.S. App)"
The internal review should look at all angles of the case. From the officer's viewpoint, the physical evidence, and take statements from all to provide a full open picture into what occurred. Officer's must use all available resources they have to ensure and prove that they did all they could to prevent the incident. Had the training kicked in properly the immunity may have stood on its own. The court ruled that the officers showed deliberate indifference and the case were remanded to trial.
