well obviously they missed it in their official capacity and technically that i understand this is a qualified immunity appeal issue whether or not they are entitled to qualified immunity as provided in their individual right that's a that's a damage claim that is definitely a damage one yes and that's for the post booking events primarily all right yes but i don't represent the state no i don't understand that  after mr barton was arrested and after he was placed into the house for in county detention center upon his arrest there was absolutely no warning signs of any type of impending heart attack there was no warning signs of any type of women and you're  saying when you think that actually the case started but but martin and right are primarily denied qualified immunity because they allegedly messed up the booking policies right correct that wasn't that wasn't nine hours after that was as fast as trooper owens got him to the to the jail no act well actually though the event that caused this case to even be here occurred nine hours their view of the facts but but we're talking about qualified immunity and if you don't focus carefully on rights and martin's role in this then then we're not get you're not helping us well i plan condition that would have been all shortly before mr barton was discovered well but i mean how did or what's the record show how r l r l knew that he talked to him and he concluded that he didn't seem to be sobering our ethics booking it at the long long after the booking process so what was the what was the disclosed was there any disclosure of a heart condition in the booking no was there a denial of it or the failure to check there was a he didn't complete the medical missed more and did not complete to the medical questionnaire about the heart condition keeping in mind though mr barton didn't know he had a heart condition in fact he had been to the hospital a relative cast a leg or that martin had said he had just been hospitalized for a heart condition he thought he had been hit he was never diagnosed with a heart issue after being hospitalized about a month before this so what happens if he shows up in the desert detention facility admitting to taking some v t level he has brought to the jail at about three fifteen on the one that afternoon before his heart attack she placed him in a holding cell which would have been next to the the booking area where dry on the other hand never has any contact whatsoever with mr barton never talks to him never discussed anything with him never has any contact with him whatsoever george wright is in jail administrator the problem that what it would have yes and what was done was she tried to talk to him when he had slurred speech he was intoxicated she believed him to be very intoxicated so she placed him into the holding cell without going into any detail about is there anything i written policies were or unwritten practices to indicate what to do in the case of someone who is recently in an accident and showing signs of intoxication or perhaps having some other physical condition there are to check for that there are some local industry airsoft that had some policies in place that would have directed her to keep a close eye on this individual possibly consider rejecting this believes that he had taken that had your coat on and the alcohol in it that was causing the problems that he was having at the time there was nothing to indicate that she had was aware of any type of a potential heart attack nothing to indicate that she was aware of any tactless serious medical need or injury at the time judge dawson points out that this was a little bit so it would seem to be a little bit more serious than a typical d w i and if we were talking about a point one more and i would have concurred with that but when you're talking about  case where you had a booking person denied qualified immunity where you have a similar situation with someone under the influence who later has a very serious health concerns w minimum jail standard class in this court is consistently held as far as the felda trying if you get that basic training that's provided by the state then that would provide a secure provider brought lotteries hoping it provides a bright line to as long as you can demonstrate that they went to the arkansas long fortune training academy or if you can demonstrate that they went through the basic joe standard class usually this court has found that there's not a felony training did they do what they should have done on this night in question well yes it did they follow the official policy that requires them to take certain cautionary actions place of a highly rated person us course of conduct that the policy require them to follow i don't think so or you don't think so but why not because they have we're trying you know the real issue how highly they're trained it's what they did or didn't do that to important but the whole case turned on whether or not they were sufficiently trying which brings in george right which was the jail administrator who had been a jail a menace traded for about a month who all of a sudden is now looking at individual capacity lab military because this  that it was it's to go beyond that to the high standard that must be satisfied to maintain a claim like this and i guess not your argument that is are going to concede to negligence no matter how up we set we are with these people providing a check if he if he had a dad of d t s i would be writing a check because you would have a causal connection between admitting him to the jail not taking care of him properly and or dying in d t s here you have him going into  the ingestion of certain chemicals and then have a medical professional actually you know you had him and under that kind of care he may have actually been in the hospital when a heart issue arrived and arose and  conceivably had that occurred he could have been in the hospital he could i have a heart attack unicode a stale died in the jail because if you note that the thing that actually caused his death is a deformed coronary artery or infiltration in the right then in the claim against right in part due to the lack of his personal knowledge of what was required in his lack of instructing those such as martin what they should do in circumstances like it is keeping him and he'd only been in the position about a month and also keeping in mind that well armed he was trying if you take the job you've got to know what you're supposed to do that i would have i would agree but i mean how long is a jail or supposed to be on the job before he knows what he's supposed to do in the care of inmate or he needs to know it pretty quick and there's just a requirement that you get to start a fide pretty quick and my point is all these people were sort of fired by the state and had been sufficiently trying on a denial of medical issue here and if they didn't follow the policy in fact as a judge take you point out in my next argument with you all she notes that the failure to follow policy does not create a constitutional morning your honor my name is stephanie line i'm a nine here representing aborigine of barton on behalf of the estate of jeffry alan barton i'm just going to kind of jump right in on with regard to the argument that the county could not have predicted the heart attack so they should be liable for the damages as a result of that this court in this case actually a prior appeal of this tabor number fourteen dash thirty two eighty stated that the court determines whether an object really serious need exists based on attendance circumstances irrespective of what the officer think the district court seems to think that the prior barton case drove the drove this train and i don't i think i think they're completely and i don't think i don't think this issue would drive the would drive the train has to oral i think there are three completely different qualified immunity situations and qualified immunity is personal and has to be analyzed that way ok well  george wright and had stated that he had never ran into someone in barton's condition and that he did not think that any of his officers had either been looking at amy martin on the record shows that she noted that barton appeared highly intoxicated yet slurred speech trouble standing alone she witnessed officer owens trying to get barton to sign paperwork but martin didn't seem to understand where he needed sign after being shown three times is there anything more to this appeal than the question whether it was unconstitutional to put him in a jail cell instead of reject him for booking and have him taken to a  somewhere else presumably of a medical facility isn't that the only question here but i think the question is whether or not he was denied medical care and i think i don't know but what the booking officer the booking officer is not a not a doctor it's she's not a nurse she has she has one she has an information gathering responsibility which may not may have been negligently performed but her decision making may be with right supervision is whether to put him in a jail cell and watch him while he hopefully sobers up as most intox in most you know d w i people do or whether it's a condition that is so that question how many cases of reset the violation of state and local policies do not do not control for them federal constitutional issues well probably more time more times than i can count i mean this is martin on right whether whether whether the policy the policies behind qualified immunity mean that martin and right shouldn't have to incur the expense of defending their own personal liability that's all we're talking about so what what what is what is the situation confronting those martin when she's performing her booking responsibilities that constitutionally required her to reject barton for admission to the  well i mean i think when you look at the severity of the circumstances the fact that mr barton had been in a car wreck the fact that he came in he  couldn't very well apparently fell he fell fell once maybe on her i guess and her presence in the booking room yes your honor but in answer the question and what what's the what's the evidence as seen that he had extensive bruising all over his back and lower body and women which she can't prove she's not personally disrobing him at the booking process what what is that what is this what would she have learned at all she said she would have if it were a female but that since there were a male she did not she openly admits she did not survey his person or his body at all that the consumption of the alcohol and an unknown amount of hide your code oh and so you had that alcohol and pharmacology mixture and  person would have known that he was in great danger of maybe selfish fixating on his own vomit or something like that i think that a jury co so you have nothing contemporaneous as to mr as to right now though he's he's what it is tomorrow is this a bike is this a supervisor liability as to him personal decision maker in the case i asked what's your best authority for denying right qualified immunity as to his individual liability because because he had nothing to do with the incident the other than his his training may have contributed to what is subordinates failed to do personal liability for a supervisor responsible for training and supervision to follow and he said that she knew that he was the one they were supposed to come to for guidance and for supervision and for training but that he didn't recall what the flow policy was and that it's possible that medical clearance was required but he wasn't sure how is what you're describing anything more than negligence well i mean there and they aren't properly trained by the policies and you don't yourself know what the policies even mean to tell them what they mean i think that rises above just negligen into what's your what's your case what you're saying is that everything bad that happened underwrites authority he's personally liable for because he was so inattentive to the need to train and supervise them and i'm sick and and i'm saying you know gimme gimme a case give me i'm not even a circuit case get me in any circuit case for personal liability before being a being for failing to enforce policies to train and supervise and that's my problem of the district court's decision a district court i don't think everyone thought of that and i'm not sure you can give me a case i imagine you you've looked at it the way that i'm seeing the issue as to right personal qualified immunity for personal liability a very narrow part of the case but an important part right you are now i mean perform the mandatory health care screenings she failed to reject him as detain me which was mandated by the priv the detention facility policies and she failed to follow protocol for a first time arrestees under the influence of drugs and alcohol she failed to appropriately classify him as a special detainee which would have actually made his death he would have been checked every fifteen minutes as opposed to once an hour which would have made could have made a very big your time six  your honour's have been very consistent you need that person persist gratian even if he would have found amy morton a fact question i probably would not appeal that to be honest because i can see where you can say well maybe maybe not but in her and he mentions it is that this is the law and then jumped into the policy and it goes crazy on the policy how many can you to to just let us know if we're trying somebody if we send somebody to the arkansas law enforcement training academies have been sufficiently trying if we sent somebody to the state jail death are quite they are in but it's quite a serious constitutional question they do and frankly her own expert says that really nothing was unusual to about eight o'clock by eight o'clock they should have started saying some some improvement