Opinion ID: 782741
Heading Depth: 6
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Relationship Through Custody

Text: 26 The state has a duty to protect a citizen when the State by the affirmative exercise of its power so restrains an individual's liberty that it renders him unable to care for himself, and at the same time fails to provide for his basic human needs. DeShaney, 489 U.S. at 200, 109 S.Ct. 998. 27 The relationship only arises when the state restrains an individual, Sargi, 70 F.3d at 911, and in this case, decedent was never in custody. The defendants did not suspect Cartwright was guilty of wrongdoing; they merely offered to give him a ride. When Cartwright refused to consent to a pat-down search, which the officers requested only when the transfer prisoner was ready to join him in the back seat of the patrol car, the officers and Cartwright parted company. 28 Also, Cartwright's inebriation was not imposed or created by the state. This Court has held that this fact alone requires a finding that the defendants did not owe the decedent an affirmative duty, because there was no special relationship. Sargi, 70 F.3d at 911 (holding that no special relationship existed between the state and a child who died of heart failure on a school bus who was not in custody, and whose condition was not imposed or created by the state); see also Weeks v. Portage County Executive Offices, 235 F.3d 275, 277-78 (6th Cir.2000) (holding that deputy sheriff had no special relationship with an assault victim who approached him, bleeding and staggering, and asked for help; though victim subsequently was beaten to death; officer had no affirmative duty to take decedent into protective custody or call for medical assistance). 29