Kneipp v. Tedder

In a civil rights complaint brought against the City of Philadelphia and certain police officers, the parents and legal guardians of Samantha Kneipp allege that late one January evening when Kneipp, in an obvious state of severe inebriation, was attempting to return on foot to her nearby apartment, the police officers stopped her and sent her on alone.

We hold that, if proven, the facts alleged will sustain a prima facie case of a violation of Kneipp's Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process right and her liberty interest in personal security under the theory that city police officers increased the risk of harm to Kneipp which ultimately resulted in the severe damages she sustained. In so holding, we adopt the "state-created danger" theory as a viable mechanism for establishing a constitutional violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On remand, the municipal liability claims against the City should be reexamined by the district court in light of the appropriate legal standard.

The events leading to the tragedy that befell Samantha Kneipp began in the late evening of January 23, 1993. Samantha and her husband Joseph were returning on foot from a night of drinking at a tavern in Bucks County, Pennsylvania.2 According to Joseph, Samantha was visibly intoxicated--she smelled of urine, staggered when she walked and, at times, was unable to walk without assistance. Joseph testified that he had to carry Samantha a portion of the way home.

Shortly after midnight, now January 24, 1993, Philadelphia Police Officer Wesley Tedder stopped the Kneipps for causing a disturbance on the highway.3 At this point, the Kneipps were only one-third of a block from their home. Unable to stand by herself, Samantha was leaning on Officer Tedder's car.4 Officer Tedder questioned Samantha and Joseph separately; he stated in his deposition that he smelled alcohol on Samantha and found both of them to be intoxicated. He gave Samantha instructions to go stand somewhere, which she did not follow.5 Joseph told Officer Tedder that he just wanted to get his wife into their apartment.

Shortly after Officer Tedder stopped the Kneipps, three other police officers arrived separately at the scene and positioned themselves across the street from Officer Tedder.6 Joseph left Officer Tedder and crossed over to the other side of the street where the police cars were situated. Joseph told one of the officers that he had a babysitter watching his son and that he was supposed to be home by now. Joseph then asked the officer if he could go home, to which the officer replied, "Yeah, sure." When Joseph left to walk home, Samantha was leaning on the front of a police car in the presence of several police officers. Joseph testified that he assumed that because Samantha was drunk, the police officers were going to take her either to the hospital or to the police station. His thoughts at the time were that Samantha should not be left alone in her inebriated state and that the police officers would take care of her,7 so he proceeded home without her.8 Officer Tedder, however, sent Samantha home alone;9 she never reached her apartment building.10

When his wife did not return to their apartment, Joseph went out to look for her.11 He saw a police car parked in a Sunoco station not far from his apartment building. As Joseph approached the car, he discovered Officer Tedder inside, and asked him if he had locked up Samantha or had taken her to the hospital. According to Joseph, Officer Tedder told him "to get out of here before he locked [him] up." Because of a previous experience with the Philadelphia police, Joseph took Officer Tedder's remark seriously and left.12 Joseph decided to continue looking for Samantha, and as he proceeded in the direction of a neighborhood convenience store, he thought he saw someone resembling Samantha, dressed in similar clothing, getting into an orange car. Because of Samantha's previous infidelity, Joseph thought that if it were Samantha, she was cheating on him again and would return when she was done. Joseph was never certain, however, that the woman he saw entering the car was Samantha. Joseph decided to forego his search and returned home.13

At approximately 1:51 a.m., Officer Francis Healy responded to a radio call reporting that an individual was found unconscious at the bottom of an embankment next to a parking lot at the shopping plaza across the street from the Kneipps' home. The unconscious individual was Samantha Kneipp. Joseph was awakened around 4:00 a.m. by Officer Healy, who informed him that Samantha had fallen and was in the hospital.

As a result of her exposure to the cold,14 Samantha suffered hypothermia, which caused a condition known as anoxia.15 Consequently, the anoxia resulted in permanent brain damage impairing many basic body functions.16

Samantha's legal guardians instituted this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Philadelphia and several police officers, alleging that the police officers were aware of Samantha's intoxication and "the potential for her to suffer harm because of her profoundly impaired faculties." By voluntarily assuming responsibility for her protection when they told Joseph he could leave, it was alleged that the officers affirmatively created a danger and increased the risk that Samantha might be injured when they later abandoned her. It is further alleged that the police conduct made Samantha "more vulnerable ... [by] interfer[ing] with the efforts of Joseph [ ] to assist his wife to safety." Because the police officers acted with "deliberate or reckless indifference, callous disregard, or in such an arbitrary or abusive manner so as to shock the conscience," the legal guardians maintained that Samantha was deprived of her right to substantive due process and her liberty interest in personal security in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

In addition, the legal guardians contended that the City of Philadelphia, by acquiescing in the longstanding policy, custom, or practice of not posting "activity credits" for taking intoxicated pedestrians into custody, and by failing to adequately train its police officers in the proper care of intoxicated persons, acted with "deliberate or reckless indifference, callous disregard, or in an arbitrary and abusive manner so as to shock the conscience," thereby also violating Samantha's right to substantive due process and her liberty interest in personal security.17

In granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment, the district court found that the legal guardians had failed to prove a constitutional violation under either the "special relationship" test or the state-created danger theory. The court also denied a motion for reconsideration.18

The legal guardians filed a timely notice of appeal from the order of the district court. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291; we exercise de novo review of the district court's grant of summary judgment. Ideal Dairy Farms, supra; Antol v. Perry, 82 F.3d 1291, 1294 (3d Cir.1996).

We begin our analysis with a discussion of the requirements for establishing a constitutional claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The pertinent language of section 1983 states:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.

Section 1983 does not, by its own terms, create substantive rights; it provides only remedies for deprivations of rights established elsewhere in the Constitution or federal laws. Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 144 n. 3, 99 S.Ct. 2689, 2694 n. 3, 61 L.Ed.2d 433 (1979); Mark v. Borough of Hatboro, 51 F.3d 1137, 1141 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 165, 133 L.Ed.2d 107 (1995) (citation omitted). In order to establish a section 1983 claim, a plaintiff "must demonstrate a violation of a right secured by the Constitution and the laws of the United States [and] that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law." Mark, 51 F.3d at 1141 (quoting Moore v. Tartler, 986 F.2d 682, 685 (3d Cir.1993)). Here, Samantha Kneipp's legal guardians have alleged that the City and police officers19 violated Samantha's right to substantive due process guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

In DeShaney v. Winnebago Co. Dep't of Social Serv., 489 U.S. 189, 197, 109 S.Ct. 998, 1004, 103 L.Ed.2d 249 (1989), the Supreme Court considered whether the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment imposed upon the state an affirmative duty to protect an individual against private violence where a special relationship exists between the state and the private individual. The Court found that the special relationship which would impose affirmative duties of care and protection on the state existed only in certain limited circumstances, such as when the state takes a person into its custody and holds him there against his will. Id. at 199-201, 109 S.Ct. at 1005-06. The Court explained:

In the substantive due process analysis, it is the State's affirmative act of restraining the individual's freedom to act on his own behalf--through incarceration, institutionalization, or other similar restraint of personal liberty--which is the "deprivation of liberty" triggering the protections of the Due Process Clause, not its failure to act to protect his liberty interests against harms inflicted by other means.

Id. at 200, 109 S.Ct. at 1006 (footnote omitted). Applying this principle to the facts in DeShaney, the Court did not find a due process violation as the harms suffered by the child occurred while he was in the custody of his father, not in the state's custody. Id. at 201, 109 S.Ct. at 1006.

In the case before us, we agree with the district court that the special relationship required by DeShaney did not exist between Samantha and the police officers. We disagree, however, with the holding of the district court insofar as it adds a special relationship requirement to the state-created danger theory. In DeShaney, the Supreme Court left open the possibility that a constitutional violation might have occurred despite the absence of a special relationship when it stated: "While the State may have been aware of the dangers that Joshua faced in the free world, it played no part in their creation, nor did it do anything to render him any more vulnerable to them." Id. at 201, 109 S.Ct. at 1006. Several of our sister courts of appeals have cited this comment by the Court as support for utilizing a state-created danger theory to establish a constitutional claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Uhlrig v. Harder, 64 F.3d 567, 572 n. 7 (10th Cir.1995), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 924, 133 L.Ed.2d 853 (1996); Dwares v. City of New York, 985 F.2d 94, 99 (2d Cir.1993); Reed v. Gardner, 986 F.2d 1122, 1125 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 947, 114 S.Ct. 389, 126 L.Ed.2d 337 (1993); Freeman v. Ferguson, 911 F.2d 52, 55 (8th Cir.1990). Moreover, two other courts of appeals, in decisions predating DeShaney, recognized the state-created danger theory as a basis for establishing a constitutional claim under section 1983. See Cornelius v. Town of Highland Lake, 880 F.2d 348 (11th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1066, 110 S.Ct. 1784, 108 L.Ed.2d 785 (1990); Wood v. Ostrander, 879 F.2d 583 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 938, 111 S.Ct. 341, 112 L.Ed.2d 305 (1990).

In previous cases, we have considered the possible viability of the state-created danger theory as a mechanism for establishing a constitutional claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Mark, 51 F.3d at 1152 (citing D.R. by L.R. v. Middle Bucks Area Vocational Technical School, 972 F.2d 1364, 1373 (3d Cir.1992) (in banc), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1079, 113 S.Ct. 1045, 122 L.Ed.2d 354 (1993)); see also Brown v. Grabowski, 922 F.2d 1097, 1114-16 (3d Cir.1990), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1218, 111 S.Ct. 2827, 115 L.Ed.2d 997 (1991). Until now, we have not, however, been presented with the appropriate factual background to support a finding that state actors created a danger which deprived an individual of her Fourteenth Amendment right to substantive due process. Samantha Kneipp's case presents the right set of facts which, if believed, would trigger the application of the state-created danger theory. We turn first to our previous decisions in this area.

In the 1990 case of Brown v. Grabowski, supra, Deborah Evans had been abducted and murdered by her former live-in boyfriend, Clifton McKenzie. Prior to the abduction, McKenzie had held Evans hostage for three days, during which he repeatedly threatened and sexually assaulted her. Although Evans and her family reported this information to the local police, criminal charges were never filed. Shortly thereafter, Evans was abducted and imprisoned in the trunk of her car where she froze to death. The personal representative of Evans' estate filed a civil rights complaint against the borough and employees of the police department alleging, inter alia, that Detective Grabowski, in failing to file criminal charges against McKenzie and in failing to inform Evans of her right as a victim of domestic violence to obtain a restraining order against McKenzie, violated her constitutional rights to due process and of access to the civil and criminal courts.

The plaintiff in Brown relied upon Wood v. Ostrander, 879 F.2d 583 (9th Cir.1989), and Cornelius v. Town of Highland Lake, 880 F.2d 348 (11th Cir.1989), in support of her argument that the state-created danger theory was a viable basis for imposing constitutional liability under section 1983. In Wood, a police officer stranded the female passenger of a drunk driver along the side of the road in a high-crime area at 2:30 a.m. While undertaking the five mile walk to her home, the passenger accepted a ride from a stranger who took her to a secluded area and raped her. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiff had raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the police officer " 'affirmatively placed [her] in a position of danger.' " 879 F.2d at 589-90 (citation omitted). The court further held that the plaintiff was distinguishable from the general public and, therefore, the police had a duty to offer her some degree of peace and safety. Id. at 590 (citing White v. Rochford, 592 F.2d 381, 384 & n. 6 (7th Cir.1979)).

The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Cornelius validated the use of the "special danger" theory as a basis for establishing a constitutional violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In that case, Mrs. Cornelius was abducted at knife-point by two prison inmates assigned to a community work squad at the town hall where she worked. Mrs. Cornelius was held hostage and terrorized for three days before being abandoned in another state. She subsequently commenced a civil rights action against various prison and town officials, alleging they owed her a duty to assign only properly classified prison inmates, i.e., nonviolent-offenders, to the community work squads and to provide adequately skilled and trained officials to supervise the prison work squads. 880 F.2d at 352. In concluding that a triable issue of fact existed precluding summary judgment, the court found that the defendants affirmatively created a dangerous situation by establishing the work squad and assigning inmates to work around town hall. Id. at 356. Moreover, because of her position as town clerk, Mrs. Cornelius was regularly exposed to prison work squads, thereby increasing her vulnerability to harm. Id. These two factors taken together "effectively operated to place [Mrs. Cornelius] in a position of danger distinct from that facing the public at large" and were sufficient to impose a duty under section 1983. Id. at 357.

The court of appeals in Cornelius also imposed a nexus element to establish a triable issue as to special danger. Citing Martinez v. California, 444 U.S. 277, 100 S.Ct. 553, 62 L.Ed.2d 481 (1980), the court held that there must be a sufficiently close nexus between the defendant's conduct and the plaintiff's alleged due process violation under the Fourteenth Amendment to establish a constitutional claim based on the special danger theory. 880 F.2d at 353 and 358. The court of appeals found the employees at the town hall, including Mrs. Cornelius, "were well within the identifiable radius of harm known to defendants," and thus concluded that these facts created a triable issue as to special danger. Id. at 359.

We found Wood and Cornelius to be distinguishable from the facts in Brown--in the former cases, the state defendants affirmatively acted to create the danger to the victims; the plaintiff in Brown, however, failed to offer any evidence that the police officers acted to create or to exacerbate the danger that the former boyfriend posed to the victim. 922 F.2d at 1116. The plaintiff demonstrated only that Detective Grabowski failed to advise the victim of her right to seek a protective order. Id. Thus, we concluded in Brown that the plaintiff had failed to establish a cognizable constitutional claim under section 1983.

In 1992, sitting in banc, we considered the state-created danger theory in D.R. by L.R. v. Middle Bucks Area Vo. Tech. School, 972 F.2d 1364 (3d Cir.1992). There two female students at a public high school alleged that they were physically, verbally and sexually molested by male students in a unisex bathroom and in a darkroom, which were parts of the graphic arts classroom. The students' parents brought a civil rights action against the school district and several school officials and employees, alleging that the defendants created the danger that resulted in a violation of the plaintiffs' constitutional rights. In support of this claim, plaintiffs argued that the school defendants " 'created a climate which facilitated sexual and physical abuse of students' " and, having thrust plaintiffs into this situation, "were obligated to protect them from violations of their personal bodily integrity by other students who were also under defendants' control." Id. at 1373.

In D.R., we recognized that the state-created danger theory had been utilized by several courts of appeals to find a constitutional violation under section 1983 in non-custodial settings. Id. We read the post-DeShaney decisions to frame the inquiry as "whether the state actors involved affirmatively acted to create plaintiff's danger, or to render him or her more vulnerable to it." Id. (citation omitted). We continued that "[l]iability under the state created danger theory is predicated upon the states' affirmative acts which work to plaintiffs' detriments in terms of exposure to danger." Id. at 1374. We quoted the following comment from the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit:

We do not want to pretend that the line between action and inaction, between inflicting and failing to prevent the infliction of harm, is clearer than it is. If the state puts a man in a position of danger from private persons and then fails to protect him, it will not be heard to say that its role was merely passive; it is as much an active tortfeasor as if it had thrown him into a snake pit.

Id. (quoting Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616, 618 (7th Cir.1982)).

We concluded in D.R. that the facts presented did not show that the defendants created the students' danger, increased their risk of harm, or made them more vulnerable to the assaults. Id. Moreover, we found the state-created danger line of cases to be factually distinguishable in a critical respect: in the cases where the courts imposed a constitutional duty based on a state-created danger, the state had affirmatively acted to create the danger. Id. In D.R., we found that the harm to the students resulted solely from the acts of private individuals, and not from the type of intermingling between state conduct and private violence that imposed liability in Wood and Cornelius. Id. at 1375. The acts or omissions of the school defendants in D.R., we concluded, did not rise to the level of affirmative action required to impose liability under the state-created danger theory.20

In the 1994 case of Fagan v. City of Vineland, 22 F.3d 1296 (3d Cir.1994) (in banc) (Fagan II ), the plaintiffs claimed their constitutional rights to substantive due process were violated when police officers recklessly conducted a high speed pursuit in violation of the Attorney General's guidelines. The plaintiffs also alleged that the municipal defendant was liable because it followed a policy of not properly training and supervising police officers in conducting high-speed pursuits, and because it followed a policy of not enforcing the pursuit guidelines. The sole issue before us was the appropriate standard by which to judge police conduct in pursuit cases alleging a violation of substantive due process. Id. at 1299. We held that the appropriate standard to be applied in police pursuit cases involving an alleged violation of substantive due process is the "shocks the conscience" test. Id. at 1303.

In Fagan II, we declined to consider the applicability of the DeShaney line of cases which imposed a constitutional duty in limited situations, i.e., special relationship or custody cases, to police pursuit cases, as this issue was not raised by the parties or addressed by the district court. Id. at 1308 n. 9. Moreover, the plaintiffs in Fagan II did not advance the state danger theory as a basis for establishing a constitutional violation. Thus, neither the district court nor our court had the opportunity in Fagan II to review the viability of the state-created danger theory. We believe that the Fagan II shocks the conscience standard is limited to police pursuit cases, and accordingly, we are not bound to follow that standard in the case before us.

In the 1995 case of Mark v. Borough of Hatboro, supra, we suggested a test for applying the state-created danger theory. We found that cases predicating constitutional liability on a state-created danger theory have four common elements:

(1) the harm ultimately caused was foreseeable and fairly direct; (2) the state actor acted in willful disregard for the safety of the plaintiff; (3) there existed some relationship between the state and the plaintiff; (4) the state actors used their authority to create an opportunity that otherwise would not have existed for the third party's crime to occur.

51 F.3d at 1152. We further noted that "[t]he cases where the state-created danger theory was applied were based on discrete, grossly reckless acts committed by the state or state actors using their peculiar positions as state actors, leaving a discrete plaintiff vulnerable to foreseeable injury." Id. at 1153. Those courts which have recognized the state-created danger theory have employed a deliberate indifference21 standard. Id. at 1152 (quoting Johnson v. Dallas Independent School Dist., 38 F.3d 198, 201 (5th Cir.1994), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 1361, 131 L.Ed.2d 218 (1995); Wood, 879 F.2d at 588; Cornelius, 880 F.2d at 350).

We again declined to adopt the state-created danger theory in Mark because its facts were dissimilar to the courts of appeals cases which upheld its use. Id. at 1152. The alleged constitutional violation in Mark arose from the borough's "failure to follow adequate policies to ensure that applicants to the fire department were screened sufficiently for tendencies towards arson." Id. at 1140. We concluded that when the alleged violation involved a policy directed at the public in general, such as the one at issue in Mark, the basis for the state-created danger theory was obviated insofar as the defendant lacked specific knowledge of the plaintiffs' condition, and a relationship between the defendants and plaintiffs did not exist. Id. at 1153.

We turn now to the unique facts presented in the case before us.

We begin by applying the four common elements we set forth in Mark for the state-created danger theory. First, the injuries to Samantha were foreseeable--Dr. Saferstein stated in his report that at a blood alcohol level of .25%, Samantha's muscular coordination was seriously impaired. Joseph's testimony as to how he had to help his wife walk, even carry her at times, also tends to show that Samantha's ability to walk was impaired. A reasonable trier of fact could conclude that in Samantha's state of intoxication, she would be more likely to fall and injure herself if left unescorted than someone who was not inebriated. Based on the facts and inferences most favorable to the legal guardians, we hold that a reasonable jury could find that the harm likely to befall Samantha if separated from Joseph while in a highly intoxicated state in cold weather was indeed foreseeable.

Second, we find the plaintiffs have adduced sufficient evidence to raise a material issue as to whether Officer Tedder acted in willful disregard for Samantha's safety. The plaintiffs presented evidence regarding Samantha's level of intoxication and impairment; by Officer Tedder's own testimony, he admitted that he knew Samantha was drunk. Moreover, Tedder's statement that he sent Samantha and Joseph home together is contradicted by the testimony of Joseph, Officer Healy and Tina Leone.

We also believe the legal guardians have proved the third element--a relationship between the state and the person injured (here Officer Tedder and Samantha and Joseph Kneipp) during which the state places the victim in danger of a foreseeable injury.22 Mark, 51 F.3d at 1153. Here it is alleged that Officer Tedder, exercising his powers as a police officer, placed Samantha in danger of foreseeable injury when he sent her home unescorted in a visibly intoxicated state in cold weather. A reasonable jury could find that Officer Tedder exerted sufficient control over Samantha to meet the relationship requirement.

Finally, there is sufficient evidence in the summary judgment record to show that Officer Tedder and the other police officers used their authority as police officers to create a dangerous situation or to make Samantha more vulnerable to danger had they not intervened. The conduct of the police, in allowing Joseph to go home alone and in detaining Samantha, and then sending her home unescorted in a seriously intoxicated state in cold weather, made Samantha more vulnerable to harm. It is conceivable that, but for the intervention of the police, Joseph would have continued to escort his wife back to their apartment where she would have been safe. A jury could find that Samantha was in a worse position after the police intervened than she would have been if they had not done so. As a result of the affirmative acts of the police officers, the danger or risk of injury to Samantha was greatly increased. Thus, we believe that a reasonable jury could find that the fourth and final requirement of Mark was satisfied here.

We find additional support for our position in the courts of appeals' decisions previously cited. See Reed v. Gardner, 986 F.2d at 1127 (police officer who removed a sober driver and left behind a passenger whom he knew to be drunk with the keys to the car was subject to liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983); Freeman v. Ferguson, 911 F.2d at 54 (police chief, by interfering with police officers' enforcement of restraining order, created the danger which resulted in the victims' deaths and thus deprived victims of their constitutional rights); White v. Rochford, 592 F.2d at 385 (police officers who arrested uncle for drag racing and left minor children alone in abandoned car on the side of a busy, limited-access highway in cold weather had deprived children of their constitutional rights to personal security where the abandonment resulted in physical and emotional injury to the children).

In contrast to the above cited authority stands the en banc decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Gregory v. City of Rogers, Arkansas,