Opinion ID: 1758925
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The right to refuse medical attention

Text: The mere fact that the police approaches a citizen and addresses him does not compel that citizen to respond to inquiries or to comply with their requests; legally, nothing prevents his choosing not to answer and walk away. State v. Shy, 373 So.2d 145 (La.1979). A person's liberty and privacy are violated when he is no longer free to disregard the questioning of the police and walk away. State v. Raiford, supra. The police do not have the authority to force anyone, even those who are visibly injured, to receive medical treatment. Ciko v. City of New Orleans, 427 So.2d 80 (La. App. 4 Cir.1983). In determining whether the officer owed a duty to do more than offer assistance, this court should have balanced the interest of defendant to refuse medical treatment against the public's interest in seeing that those in need of medical assistance will receive it. [3] While defendant may have seemed disoriented this did not give the officer the right or the duty to substitute his judgment for that of defendant. Doing so violated defendant's right to refuse treatment, a right which is protected by our constitution, our jurisprudence, and our appreciation of liberty. The majority suggests that, based on defendant's offensive and derisive language in the middle of a public highway, plus his visibly intoxicated condition, Officer Taylor was justified in believing defendant was acting `in a manner which would foreseeably disturb or alarm the public.' State v. Jordan, 369 So.2d 1347, n. 3 (La.1979). Defendant's words and actions may have justifiably angered Officer Taylor as an affront to his authority. However, there is no evidence that defendant was acting in a manner that was dangerous to himself or to others. He merely refused Officer Taylor's attempt to seize him in an effort to transport him to a medical facility. Moreover, there is no evidence that defendant was gravely disabled, and in need of immediate hospitalization to protect him or others from physical harm. The very facts relied upon by the majority to justify a conviction, however, suggest that defendant was not disabled and that he had complete use of his faculties.