Are Police Liable When Arrestees Die in Custody?

When a suspect is arrested by police and later dies while in custody, can the police be held liable for the arrestee’s death?

Does law enforcement have a “special relationship” with individuals under their control, such that the law would impose a duty of care on the officers to keep the individual(s) safe from harm?

These were the questions the California Court of Appeal answered last week in Frausto v. Dep’t of the California Highway Patrol.

Highway Patrol officers stopped a car driven by John Cornejo on March 30, 2015. Cornejo was stopped because he did not have his lights on while driving on the highway at 4:00AM. There were three passengers in the car, and one of the CHP officers noticed that Cornejo was only wearing one shoe and the smell of alcohol wafted from the car.

The officer began a field sobriety test and noticed that Cornejo was making a chewing motion with his mouth. Cornejo said he was chewing gum, and then became agitated and tried escaping. Officers apprehended Cornejo, who was still chewing on something and finally swallowed whatever he was chewing on. One of the officers became suspicious that Cornejo was ingesting methamphetamine or illegal drugs. He asked Cornejo again whether the substance he by now had swallowed was drugs. If it was, the officer would need to summon paramedics to insure that Cornejo would not suffer injuries to his health. Cornejo again insisted all he had chewed on was gum, and he claimed he spit it out. Relying on Cornejo’s representations, none of the officers summoned paramedics, and Cornejo was transported to jail.

Several hours later, Cornejo began sweating profusely in his cell. He was acting strange. A short time after that, jail deputies found him unconscious, foaming at the mouth. He died while in jail custody.

Cornejo’s parents sued the Highway Patrol, alleging that officers were negligence and thus liable for Cornejo’s death because they did not summon paramedics after becoming suspicious that Cornejo had ingested drugs. They sued for wrongful death.

A doctor who testified for Cornejo’s parents opined at trial that methamphetamine increases the heart rate and blood pressure. There is no antidote for the drugs; the only treatment available is to counteract their symptoms. The earlier a patient presents to an emergency room, the more likely it is that medical staff can prevent cardiac arrest from amphetamine poisoning.

This was a case of first impression in California. This means no previous California case had decided whether law enforcement owes a duty to those in their custody because of the special relationship between arrestees and the officers. The CHP argued that officers had no legal duty to obtain a medical evaluation for an arrestee who is suspected of having ingested a controlled substance but declines medical assistance and shows no sign of drug ingestion while in the officer’s custody.

The Court ruled in Cornejo’s parents’ favor. The Court noted that an arrestee, once in custody, “is vulnerable, dependent, subject to the control of the officer, and unable to attend to his or her own medical needs. Due to this special relationship, the officer owes a duty of reasonable care to the arrestee.”

This decision sheds light and clarifies the duty all law enforcement officers in California owe those that they arrest and take into custody.

For questions about your case, whether it’s a claim against the police, other governmental entities, or a private party for negligence, the Rabbi Lawyer is ready to assist, 24/6.