Background
Jason Thomson suffered a seizure at a homeless shelter in Green Bay, Wisconsin on February 9, 2020, and was transported to St. Vincent Hospital for treatment. Early the next morning, Thomson became agitated and confrontational with hospital staff, accusing a nurse of rolling her eyes at him. When he refused to cooperate with staff, hospital security called the Green Bay Police Department.
Upon arrival, Officer O’Donnell found Thomson standing shirtless in a hallway, yelling incoherently and flailing his arms. The officer grabbed Thomson’s wrist, pushed him against a wall, and eventually restrained him on the floor with assistance from other arriving officers. Throughout the encounter, Thomson repeatedly stated he could not breathe. The officers responded by placing a hand on his back to confirm breathing and ensuring no pressure was applied to his upper torso. Officers subsequently placed Thomson in a WRAP device—a fabric restraint designed for violent or combative subjects—and transported him to the Brown County Jail.
At the jail around 3:10 a.m., Thomson appeared pale and largely unresponsive. A nurse from the jail’s Health Service Unit assessed him within five minutes and concluded he required hospital evaluation rather than jail admission. Before hospital transport could occur, Thomson experienced cardiac arrhythmia and died. The medical examiner determined the cause of death was “cardiac arrhythmia of undetermined etiology following police restraint” and ruled it a homicide. Thomson’s Estate sued the officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging excessive force and failure to provide adequate medical care, and asserted a Monell failure-to-train claim against the City of Green Bay.
The Court’s Holding
The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the officers on all claims. On the medical care issue, the court held that no reasonable jury could find the officers’ conduct objectively unreasonable. When Thomson first complained he could not breathe, Officer O’Donnell took the concrete step of placing his hand on Thomson’s back to verify he was breathing. When other officers assisted, they jointly ensured no one was kneeling on Thomson or restricting his airflow. The court emphasized that while the officers stopped short of seeking immediate medical care, their precautionary measures distinguished this case from prior precedent. The court rejected the Estate’s argument that Thomson’s heavy breathing, sweating, and other physical symptoms constituted a medical emergency requiring immediate hospital care, noting these symptoms were also consistent with prolonged physical struggle. The court similarly found reasonable the officers’ reliance on a hospital-issued medical clearance form during transport to the jail and their deference to the professional judgment of the jail nurse upon arrival.
On the excessive force claims, the court held that the force used in arresting and restraining Thomson was objectively reasonable under the circumstances. Officer O’Donnell’s initial wrist grab and subsequent takedown were justified given Thomson’s volatile and uncooperative behavior and confrontation with hospital staff. The deployment of the WRAP device was also reasonable because Thomson continued to kick and flail even after being handcuffed, creating a safety risk to himself and officers. The court credited testimony from Officer O’Donnell and hospital staff confirming Thomson’s physical resistance and found that video footage did not contradict this account.
Finally, the court held that even if constitutional violations could be established, the officers would be entitled to qualified immunity. The Estate failed to identify clearly analogous precedent establishing that officers violated the Fourth Amendment by failing to seek medical treatment when symptoms could be consistent with physical exertion, officers observed the detainee breathing, and responsive measures were taken. The Monell failure-to-train claim against the City of Green Bay necessarily failed because no underlying constitutional violation was established.
Key Takeaways
- Officers’ responsive precautionary measures—such as monitoring breathing and confirming lack of airway obstruction—can satisfy Fourth Amendment duties even when immediate medical care is not sought.
- Ambiguous physical symptoms during arrest (which could result from either medical emergency or physical resistance) do not create a jury question regarding constitutional violations when officers take observable steps to address expressed concerns.
- Non-medical officers are entitled to defer to medical professionals’ judgments at custodial facilities, absent evidence the medical professionals are “failing to treat or inadequately treating” the detainee.
- Qualified immunity remains robust protection: officers need not fear liability when no prior case clearly establishes that their specific conduct violates the Fourth Amendment under analogous facts.
Why It Matters
This decision is significant for police departments and municipalities defending use-of-force and medical-care claims arising from arrests of individuals exhibiting behavioral or medical crises. The court’s emphasis on officers’ responsive actions—rather than requiring affirmative decisions to seek medical care—provides meaningful protection for officers facing ambiguous situations in which symptoms could indicate either medical distress or physical resistance. The decision also reinforces that compliance with departmental policy, while potentially relevant, is not a constitutional prerequisite, and that officers may reasonably rely on medical clearance forms and professional medical judgment without exposing themselves to § 1983 liability.
For plaintiffs and estates pursuing excessive force and medical-care claims, the decision underscores the difficulty of defeating summary judgment when officers have taken any observable precautionary measures and qualified immunity remains available. The court’s framework—focusing on the specific context at the time officers acted, viewed through the lens of “tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving” circumstances—favors officers and may discourage future litigation absent significantly more egregious facts or clearly analogous prior precedent.