Court Opinion

ID: 9692991
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 16:15:18.611438+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:38.670546
License: Public Domain

T. M. Burns, J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent.
Plaintiffs sufficiently allege tortious conduct.
The allegations indicate that a police officer with knowledge that plaintiff James Cebulski would have an uncontrollable bowel movement forbade plaintiff, under penalty of arrest, from having that bowel movement other than in his pants.
Such conduct is outrageous!
This conduct goes beyond all possible bounds of decency and is intolerable in a civilized community.
The majority incorrectly focuses on defendant officer’s conduct in stopping plaintiff James Cebulski for speeding and issuing him a ticket. Defendant officer’s other conduct cannot be ignored. While defendant officer certainly had a legal right to stop plaintiff James Cebulski and issue him a ticket, he had no right to force him to have a bowel movement in his pants. At the very least, defendant police officer could have searched plaintiff James Cebulski for weapons and then allowed him to proceed over to the bushes.
Because plaintiffs’ complaint states a valid cause of action, I would reverse.