Opinion ID: 2982356
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Estate of Thomas Steiner

Text: The Estate of Thomas Steiner has also asserted a claim of false imprisonment, alleging that the officers should have known that by seizing Steiner’s medication and access to Regets, Steiner would be unable to care for himself and leave his hotel room to receive assistance. As the viability of each claim must be weighed against each defendant individually, the Estate’s most 3 Specifically, the plaintiff repeatedly claimed that he lived there, and the officers knew from his driver’s license and social security number that his address matched the apartment’s address. Id. at 306. - 16 - Case No. 13-1574, Regets v. City of Plymouth viable claim is against Officer Grabowski who seized Steiner’s medication. Binay v. Bettendorf, 601 F.3d 640, 650 (6th Cir. 2010). However, as the district court properly concluded, no evidence in the record establishes that the officers knew or should have known Steiner would be unable to care for himself without the medication in the seized packages. Grabowski did not confiscate the medication he believed Steiner was using on a daily basis. Officer Cox contacted Steiner and Steiner told him the medications they had left in his room would be sufficient “for a few days.” R. 52-3, Cox. Dep. at 21, PageID # 729. Cox inquired to ensure that Steiner would have sufficient medication for the next few days and Steiner reiterated that he would and that he could get a prescription and go to the pharmacy if needed. Moreover, the fact that Steiner was not in his hotel room when the officers arrived further rebuts Regets’s allegation that Defendants should have known that Steiner was unable to leave the hotel room without Regets’s assistance. Accordingly, Defendants, including Grabowski, had no reason to believe that the absence of certain medication would prevent Steiner from leaving his hotel room.