our call this morning is the general number twenty one case number one zero seven six five eight jennifer cain or individually versus the city of their parent particular case is a very simple issue and the issues such as ten slash two zero two trump ten slash four one and i believe that this it's our position that two zero two does not in this particular case occurred when at the hand police officer quint layard a sergeant at the time received a call around three thirty am of a dispute between a young man and a young woman  arrived at the same and located the deceived in the rear of a vehicle and there was a male suspect also there was two police officers the energy police officer took the male suspect and took him  consumption but she was eighteen years of age washee was not legal to drink she was a legal adult she posted bond and was released from custody she was  to leave the lot confined ment of the police department and was allowed to go into the lobby and she was released from custody of the errant police department and i believe that is issue that  the telling point in this particular case on one o seven when it says that a police officer municipality cannot be liable for injuries caused by the failure to make the rest releasing a person from custody so if any  an adult for bond post when she posted the bond and she was allowed outside the locked doors of the police department into the lobby with understand if someone was coming to get her at the time and then she for whatever reason we don't know she left the place department i think that's important after she was released from custody she left the place of arm she walked it's maybe not the record but it's about point seven miles about ten blocks from the place department and was struck a vehicle and it was a hit and run at the time essentially first i think that's important because at that point the place here and police department had released her from the police station and at that where this action took place the police department was not exerting control of the situation on her on the scene on the roadway or had no control over the situation at the scene of where this  accident happened some ten blocks from the place department after her release i believe part of the light of this argument is that the release was conditional on the young lady was to give her an i bought him at a fact i think greg says she had one hundred dollars cash and he could even taking one hundred dollars cash and taking all the money she had are given and i bond and allowed her to and then she called have someone getting that know the answer your question is there is no nothing in the record if the bond was conditioned on someone picking her up and i don't believe the law would allow someone who was a it's a bondable offense pay to finance it requires a bond and to be i don't believe you can condition the bond on anything other than the posting of the monetary some mr blair you started by saying no simple this was to you it's just a case of whether she was released from custody of she was or one was of a most specific immunit specific exception within that section you know they can't you can't broaden it and if it's not mentioned either negative or willful one such as that or statute this is an absolute immunity and your honor if you take it one step further and how it would be that's the simple as that is there's got to be some point in time to release a police officer's liability in a situation i mean if you don't cut off the police i mean if you if you say that you know the the act continued past the release when does the place off service fully get let off the hook so to speak or his duty to the person of the detainees stop if there is not some point in time where the police officer can release the you you know why your argument is certainly a valid argument but if we were to move if we were against your expectations to move past that point it started analysis of two zero two two two zero two yes or would that just i understand it and understand that the bell ability that argument i just recognize that to have to apply sometimes i believe it in this case it did apply at the beginning and i believe that you know that an argument could be made that at that junction two zero two would apply if something were to happen to her there at the same are while she was still within the village to be controlled by the officer i think it would be a different situation and i think that this court and we would have to address the issue on the two zero two and i think two or two applied up to the point of once he does he she has posted bond and releases from custody i think that the one  cuts off the tool to approach after the officer gets to the situation where he has taken control over he defused the situation he took it to the police station to separate her from the matter fact in the in his deposition he separated thinking that he could get a more true story of what was going on if she was not in the same presence with the male suspect that was there and saw the answer question i think that too it too would apply up to a point in the fact situation we have here but in the allegations of the complaint and how this case played out that one o seven at one point at the point that she's released stops to to i think it's my position that to go to applied up till that side she posted bond and released in one of seven takes over and good explanation as to why you can't tell me why it doesn't why doesn't it why i didn't apply it did apply it to the point she was at least that's my point ok but i mean it's sort of like you know unlike the lacy decision he's got to be appointed some time that you have to stop i mean you have to cut off the situation at some time and i think totoo he's an force in the law who comes and takes over the control of the  of the situation the fuses the situation writes the citation enforces the law and bonds are out and some point the enforcement under two two has to stop and it goes on to the next back to justice commerce question again if it is a question it's some point that the young woman was allowed to make a phone call not to her family apparently but to some other adult who was  who told her on the phone that they're going to come and pick her up that's correct it was about an hour before she was released i apologize had the time frame i believe he came to the call or it originated three thirty i believe was when the call was made he came to the situation and i think the record says she left about four forty so the hope  and i apologize to the court i don't know specifically when that time i read the same things and just thought it was about an hour right i agree with you it was about an hour from when he received the call to this side street inherent until she released i think the record says she mattered she left  four forty so it's an hour and in the deposition was there any talk about why why she chose chose to leave before she was picked up no your honor she was a post of mine and she was allowed to go into the lobby that's a public lobby and the records sergeant lay guess you could backtrack how many long it would take to read walk the ten or so blocks that she'd walked specific case to the facts that case why there was control secondly honor as i attempt to answer the first question i think to applies up to a point also in that particular case the officer was there and i think the distinguishing point between the dole case in this case is unfortunately the controlling also i think officer or k or h r k you know he would have the he was there he prevented anybody else from intervening he prevented anybody else from going into the apartment and there was without question he had control over the situation at that particular time and i think how  in this particular case is distinguish that from that and one of the seven is distinguished from the police protection case in a case is that it's some point once they take into custody there's a point that has to come to where the situation is over and the person is released because if you don't allow some point to the person to get released and i think that's how i reconciled though with and the one i was seven i think that under duress it was the issue of you know the officer was there to be able to take control of the situation here we had controlled the situation she was released and i will and left on her own will and had the accident some blocks from the police department into the opinion of the public court that both sides agreed that the officer at that time was in fact enforcing the law and in that situation that's when the husband was told to leave the police officer there the the wife and the husband were having this domestic dispute the officers there were in control and told him to leave and i think that that case is distinguishable on the fact that the officer there was in control both parties agreed that they were enforcing the law at that particular time which took him out of the one hundred seven because they didn't really release him from custody and also the oh i k case that was the first district and that's the one where the they have the various the person was stopped had the dui and they let him go the first district bellecourt i think one was wrong in it i mean because they relied upon they basically said all the case law from this court at a cost of posts were fundamentally flawed and i think that those two particular cases are different from this case and that when the event happened the police officer was allowed out he wasn't finished with his control of the situation in both those situations such as we have here where the control finished and they were was released from custody after the police officer was there and forcing the law pled allegations and looking at at least count three in the complaint it makes the allegation that when she was taken in the custody she was incoherent and legally and intoxicated and also says in paragraph six  that referring to this phone call that there was some agreement that an adult would come and retrieve that this is not clear to me but it looks like they were still supervising the actions by sitting with her in the lobby but doesn't explain the theft point if someone was a supervisor and if she's if we were to read this that she's still publicly intoxicated when justice o'connor asked there was no authority would there not be authority to keep someone who is presumably bond i you know i can't keep or you know i do some civil rights defense you know once i know that once someone posted my detaining that person after the bondable offense which the criminal statute provides  have really no authority to take control of her or keep her from there once she postpone he he he he prepare at least set her out on bond based upon some kind of general court orders  that's covered by one by one so that's correct because it doesn't provide it exception that he's negligent well from want from when he decides release or once he releases her from care one hundred seven provides the immunity that but i don't believe under the facts of the law that under the immunity act i don't believe we'll get to that point whether or not you know the place officer has to make that decision or not to release them into custody at that moment if there's no furthe my name is mark prince and i represent the plaintiff appellant are absolutely jennifer keener in her capacity as the administrator of the state of chelsea king or the first issue i would like to address is also in response to some of the questions from the bench and that is whether there was a release from custody in the first place whether for one of the seven is even implicated under these under these facts officer officer layered in the record a supplemented with his discovery deposition testified very clearly that there was a condition placed on this i bond that we've been discussing the i bond he was going to g say he promised her that chelsea would be waiting at the police station when she got there the police station is inherent linda king case coming from harrisburg just about a forty five minute drive so when this call came in an officer layard who would put up until the second call could came in and decided to detain chelsea until linda can cade came to pick her up he was he was exercising control over that over her situation and it was only because the second call came in later that night that he had to respond to because the city police department was understaffed there are only two officers on duty from what you're saying the condition was meant are you saying it wasn't it wasn't met and we can take that condition we can extend it further because they i bond discussion took place earlier and it took place at two times according to to the deposition once when when there was some discussion about posting one hundred dollars bond an officer layered said basically i'm going to try to be a nice guy and we can we can i bond but you got to you got to make arrangements for why they were in the second call came in that he was dispatched to that he had to leave and he escorted her to the lobby out of the secure area the last words he said to her was you're supposed to wait for your ride before you leave and then i said so in the deposition i intoxicated and intoxicated person to tell you they're going to do one thing and then turn around to do something else yes so i think the condition is actually she's better wait until the adult sober take somebody into protective custody who's exhibiting symptoms of of intoxication and true but i mean that is a dilemma but as as is the city of heroin conceded in their argument to to all to did apply at the beginning and said i didn't hear anything contrary maybe there is something kind of counsel says that he was required the officer was required to allow or the post went with the i pad and once that release is made the immunity apply but your honor his actions are inconsistent with his words he is you know they're taking the position that once i bond is posted we have no no right to the answer to that i know what i can tell you for sure from where we're at with the discovery is that the booking process had been completed she'd been fingerprinted she'd been photographed and all that necessary paperwork for that for that a western taken place now whether the i bond head had actually been not sure what the procedure is and how that works but whether that had been done my presumption is that it probably had been done case determining that is correct marshall versus ellison i think specifically held that it did not provide for a private right of action but it still pronounces what public policy is it still gives the police officers the the the isn't the fact that there is an immunity for releasing a person in custody is exactly the type of thing with kind of plaited here a negligent release of custody or  a willful and wanton release of custody and then the immunity is granted same when there is a really nice of custody then the immunity just attaches regardless of these overwriting  circumstances your your position on being i don't think so because i think at that point in time the part of the analysis kicks in where we've got to look at the doe and the met and the lacy cases which all i think uniformly recognize an oriental rate that if an officer is executing a force in law percent to two too old to then that is almost they they call it is exception to for one or two four one zero seven and i think so we come to that point in time and if you look at the owes it case in the fall he got ok's those were those were in essence release me the city is taking a position that we've got to cut off because you're saying it is not because they were present when the accident happened the officers weren't present when the accident happened they released them and let them go on their on their merry way and then they end up killing other people are i think it's same do they would old in anybody else i mean i don't think her age really is makes that much of an impact i think that if they see a person that they know and it's just something that they can do but i could i think it goes back to to the fact that that that's a public policy pronouncement by our legislature that we need to protect the public from intoxicated people's worlds and protect them has a has a duty to hold in and tax it person until they're sober or or else personally trains or more sure some kind of safe transportation is it which or so i think so i think that's probably more want that's what our police officers officer put her in the lobby and said i'll stay here and he had his responsibilities to go back to answer a phone where is the wolf that just placed there well i think if we look look look at all the facts she was she was arrested and charged with under age consumption she had a point one eight blood alcohol content he admitted that she was she was intoxicated should he have it he should it should he have had someone else there to make sure she didn't leave me where what was times ability to have should he have kept her in the lock up waiting for somebody i mean i think definitely yes even after she was released even after even after that i bought i think that i don't i did not find any constitutional authority requiring that release after they are popped just like i did not follow any find any authority address in the timing of the i bond or when they have to look somebody go from their custody even if she has one hundred dollars i mean are they going to let her go even if she postcard else are they going to let her go are we going to allow this to happen to let her go and she bond in this case that and the officer has to allow her to leave right but then you're saying that on top of that the officer she has a right to leave and yet the officer has a duty to keep  or mean it isn't there going to be a tension between that in a civil rights violation or a constitutional deprivation situation and he can you can you see we're in a different fact pattern that same person that wasn't allowed to release is going to say that he or she was unlawfully held i can without a doubt i can see that happening but we've got to look at what all sort of lawyer did he condition her release on her waiting for an adult to come get her so we've been talking about shows that he has the authority early stevie recognized or he thought he had the authority to impose conditions it's not an absolute right to relace otherwise he knew she was  i'm sorry we're all making jumps in the back so i think the officer it seems to me arguably used the threat just to keep her there he understood she could just leave but he had to be about his business elsewhere and he said no you stay here and wait and hope that that would do do it for her but it did and that brings me back to the question justice burke asked what's willful and wanton about what the police officer did i think if you look at at the entire circumstance with with the way the whole evening played out in the hair and police department i think it's a question of fact for the jury to determine whether there was willful no one understand that we as a matter of walking can make the initial determination but i just think that the way it all played out i mean he had or he had her arrested she will point one eight used to him for two and a quarter times the the way he left her going to the into a public area and attended left around supervised even though he knew that it was likely she was going to listen to what he said it's indicate whether there was anybody else in the lock up or what the lock of space not to my knowledge just like in the lobby i don't i don't think the question had been asked and i don't think the affidavit stated whether there was anybody else in the lobby i think both officer laird and officer mara both responded to this other call that came in leaving only the dispatcher at the police station that's what itself but to best my knowledge your honor given where we were with but using that as a threat but the fact of the matter is that's what he did because he knew something else needed to be done and i think the fact that he left her and attended knowing that she was likely to wander off that could lead a jury to determine that there was be immunity under one hundred two as well failure to provide adequate police protection or service i mean that you know we've been focusing on one of the seven the released from custody even if we were to find that that there was some greater duty that needed to be provided and he failed to provide you know knowing that he had to release or but he had this application and the three main faction look at this is number one oh was our response and in a lot of these cases word that we're talking about for one or two application there's just no response by the police officer whether it's  motorists ran off the road or whether it's in a way see where they know the officers for two months don't don't do would agree with this though for want of two or for one of those i mean there have been cases that arise in this case is one of them were the results are tragic but the language of the tort of unity somehow leaves open tragic results and yet immunize toward a media act has left open has left many tragedies in its wake over the over the years so i agree with that i don't like it but that's the fact of the matter you're right and that and you would also agree that  world from one language conduct for negligent or releasing from custody one zero seven applies to this young lady while tragic she was allowed to post bond she was of age she was released past the locked door of the police department into the lobby  and then suffering left and i think it's important to note that at the time of this incident were to take place officer it was not exerting any control over the situation or at the time and also  response to the first two first district cases both dismayed and lacey were subsequent to the war sick and the font agogo case and in closing unless there's any other questions it's our position that one o seven in this