Court Opinion

ID: 9707239
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 02:06:16.22664+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:29.582430
License: Public Domain

GIVAN, Justice.
In an opinion reported at 618 N.E.2d 1825, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part a judgment of the Harrison Cireuit Court. We grant transfer and affirm the Harrison Cireuit Court in its entirety.
The facts are: Appellant Radeliffs mother filed an "Application for Emergency Detention of Person Alleged to be Mentally IIl and Dangerous and in Need of Immediate Restraint" in the Harrison Cireuit Court. Accompanying the application was a physician's statement that, based upon information received from Radeliff's mother and sister, he was of the opinion that she was mentally ill and dangerous.
Based upon this information, the trial court entered an order directed to the Harrison County Sheriff to take Radeliff into custody and transport her to the LifeSpring Mental Health Center. When the Sheriff first went to Radeliff's home to carry out the order, she was not present. Later, when she returned home, she was informed that the Sheriff was looking for her. She called the Sheriff's office and agreed to accept service of the papers.
Sheriff Davis and his deputy, Captain Terry Allen, arrived at Radeliffs home at approximately 7:30 p.m. The police officers called the LifeSpring Mental Health Center and were advised that no beds would be available until the next morning. - Captain Allen thereupon called the trial judge and informed him that no bed was available at LifeSpring. The judge then instructed the police officers to take Radcliff into eustody anyway. Alien further informed the judge that there was no bed available in the Harrison County Jail for a woman that night. The judge then instructed the officers to take Radcliff to either the Clark County Jail or the Washington County Jail until a bed be*1306came available at LifeSpring. Radcliff offered to go with the sheriffs the next morning when a bed became available at LifeSpring. However, the officers declined that offer, took her into custody, and transported her to the Washington County Jail.
At approximately 12:80 p.m. the following day, a bed became available and Radcliff was transported to LifeSpring. The day after that, a physician at the hospital examined Radcliff and advised the Harrison Circuit Court that he found "no probable cause to believe [Radeliff] meets the criteria for involuntary commitment." - Radeliff then was released.
The fact that Radeliff later was found to be sane and released from the hospital does not gainsay the actions of the Harrison Circuit Court or the police officers involved in this case. At the time the Harrison Ciréuit Court was taking action, it had before it the statements of Radeliff's mother and sister that in their opinion she was mentally ill and dangerous. Accompanying their statement was also a statement by a physician, based upon their representation, that in his opinion Rad-cliff was mentally ill and dangerous. It was proper for the Harrison Circuit Court, faced with this information, to issue a commitment to a mental hospital for further evaluation of Radeliff. It is obvious that to do otherwise would have the potential of endangering the well-being of Radcliff and members of her family.
The Court of Appeals in its opinion correctly holds that the county commissioners of neither county had control over the actions of the sheriff and neither the county nor the commissioners thereof can be held liable for a claim of false imprisonment made against the county sheriff, citing Delk v. Bd. of Com'rs of Delaware County (1987), Ind.App., 503 N.E.2d 436.
We disagree with the Court of Appeals' reversal of the Harrison Cireuit Court's granting of summary judgment in favor of the sheriffs. The Harrison County Sheriff was faced with the dilemma of learning at approximately 7:30 p.m. that no bed was available at the facility to which he was ordered to deliver Radcliff. At that time, he was free to use his best judgment as to how to carryiout the court order but at the same time protect Radeliff and any person with whom she might come in contact.
It was logical for him to contact the trial judge and seek his opinion in the matter. It also was proper for the trial judge to advise the sheriff to seek a solution which would retain custody of Radeliff. It should be obvious to all that the judge was not in a position to make an order book entry at 7:80 p.m.
The sheriff was entitled to treat the judge's advice as to how to carry out the previously issued order as a further order in the matter. It certainly was not the duty of the sheriff to see to it that the judge made a proper order book entry concerning the matter at his first opportunity. There is no evidence in this record that Radcliff was treated in any way other than a kind and considerate fashion. The sheriff's action was obviously in good faith and carried out without negligence. The trial court had issued a written order to the sheriff which recited that Radcliff was mentally ill and dangerous.
We hold that under the cireumstances, the sheriffs involved were entitled to immunity under Ind.Code § 16-14-9.1-12 which read at that time:
(a) Any person who, without malice, bad faith or negligence and according to this chapter:
(1) participates in proceedings for the detention or commitment of another person; or
(2) assists in the detention, care, and treatment of another person alleged or adjudged to be mentally ill; is immune from any civil or eriminal liability which might otherwise be imposed as a result thereof.
(b) This immunity does not permit any person to physically abuse a patient nor deprive a patient of any personal or civil rights except according to the provisions of this chapter. (This statute was repealed by Public Law 2-1992 $ 897, effective February 14, 1992. For present law, see Ind. Code § 12-24-4-4.)
*1307The actions of the sheriffs of both counties were entirely reasonable under the circumstances.
We grant transfer and affirm the trial court.
SHEPARD, C.J. and DICKSON, J., concur.
DeBRULER, J., dissents with separate opinion.
SULLIVAN, J., dissents.