Guan v. City of New York

20-4002-cv
Guan v. City of New York
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
August Term 2021
(Argued: January 14, 2022 Decided: June 17, 2022)
Docket No. 20-4002-cv
KAIBIN GUAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CITY OF NEW YORK, OFFICER PETER BOYLE, SHIELD #18572, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND
OFFICIAL CAPACITIES, OFFICER LUIS LARASAAVEDRA, SHIELD #19150, IN HIS
INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITIES,
Defendants-Appellees. ∗
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Before: POOLER, CHIN, and CARNEY, Circuit Judges.
∗
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the official caption to
conform to the above.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York (Daniels, J.) dismissing the amended complaint.
Following a disturbance at a hospital, two New York City police officers arrested
plaintiff-appellant and transported her to another hospital for a psychiatric
evaluation. Plaintiff-appellant asserted false arrest claims, alleging that the
police officers lacked probable cause to arrest her for a mental health
examination. The district court granted defendants-appellees' motion for
summary judgment, holding that because the police officers had probable cause
to arrest plaintiff-appellant for a misdemeanor trespass, her false arrest claim
was precluded. The district court did not reach the issue of the existence of
probable cause for a mental health arrest. The district court also held, in the
alternative, that the officers were protected by qualified immunity because they
had arguable probable cause to make a mental health arrest. While we conclude
that the district court erred in its probable cause analysis, we agree that the
officers were protected by qualified immunity.
AFFIRMED.
2
NICOLE D. VALENTE (Arian Soroush, on the brief),
Cravath, Swaine & Moore L.L.P., New York, New
York, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
KEVIN OSOWSKI (Richard Dearing and Jeremy W.
Shweder, on the brief), for Georgia M. Pestana,
Corporation Counsel of the City of New York,
New York, New York, for Defendants-Appellees.
CHIN, Circuit Judge:
On November 13, 2017, New York City police officers took the 21-
year-old autistic son of plaintiff-appellant Kaibin Guan into custody for an
assessment of whether he required protective services. He was admitted to a
nearby hospital for an emergency psychiatric examination. Guan was not
present when her son was removed. She went to the hospital to find him, and
although she remained there for hours, she was not permitted to see him. At one
point, hospital security removed her from the premises; she returned and then
refused to leave. Eventually, New York City police officers arrested her. She
was transported directly to a different hospital, where she was subjected to a
psychiatric evaluation. She was released about three hours later -- without being
charged with any crime.
3
Guan brought this action below, suing defendants-appellees City of
New York (the "City") and Peter Boyle and Luis Larasaavedra, the two arresting
police officers, seeking damages for false arrest pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and
1983. The district court granted defendants summary judgment pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(b) and dismissed Guan's amended complaint,
holding that the officers had probable cause to arrest her for misdemeanor
trespass and that therefore the false arrest claims were precluded. The district
court did not address whether the officers had probable cause to make a mental
health arrest. It also held, in the alternative, that the officers were protected by
qualified immunity because they had arguable probable cause to make a mental
health arrest.
We hold that the district court erred in its probable cause analysis,
but we conclude that the officers were indeed protected by qualified immunity.
Accordingly, we affirm.
4
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A. The Facts
The facts are construed in the light most favorable to Guan.
Guan is a single mother and primary caretaker of her autistic son,
Alfred, who was 21 years old at the time of the incident. 1 Alfred has limited
speech capabilities and is unable to leave home by himself due to his autism. A
homecare worker assists Guan with her son.
On November 13, 2017, as Guan was preparing to leave for work,
New York City police officers and caseworkers from the New York City Adult
Protective Services Program arrived at Guan's apartment. They presented Guan
with an order authorizing the officers and caseworkers "to conduct an
evaluation" to determine whether Alfred required adult protective services. Joint
App'x at 348. Guan did not understand the order to permit Alfred's removal
from the apartment, and because she needed to leave for work, Guan left Alfred
at home with the homecare worker for the evaluation. Soon thereafter, however,
1 Guan was approximately 51 years old at the time of the incident. She is 5'4" tall
and weighs approximately 145 pounds. She was educated in China, came to the United
States in 1994, and worked as an interpreter and as a translator of documents in the
science and technology fields.
5
Guan was notified by the homecare worker that her son had been removed from
the home.
The homecare worker did not speak English and was unable to tell
Guan where her son had been taken. Guan concluded, however, that he had
been taken to Mount Sinai West ("Mount Sinai"), formerly the Roosevelt Hospital
in Manhattan. She immediately went there. When she arrived around 11 a.m., a
social worker and psychiatrist at Mount Sinai showed Guan a document
advising that Alfred had been admitted for an emergency psychiatric
examination. The document, entitled "Notice of Status and Rights -- C.P.E.P.
[Comprehensive Psychiatric Emergency Program] Emergency Admission," was
addressed to Alfred and advised that:
Based upon an initial examination by a staff physician, you have
been admitted as an emergency-status patient to this [C.P.E.P.] for
immediate observation, care and treatment. Within 24 hours of the
time you are received in the C.P.E.P. emergency room, you will be
examined by another physician, who is a member of the psychiatric
staff of the C.P.E.P. If he or she confirms the first physician's
findings, you will then be moved to an extended observation bed
and may be kept in the C.P.E.P. for a period of up to 72 hours from
the time you are received in the emergency room.
6
Id. at 12. The notice further advised that legal assistance through Mental
Hygiene Legal Services was available to the recipient and his representative or
family. Id.Guan repeatedly asked hospital personnel to see her son, explaining
that he had severe autism, but her requests were denied or ignored. She
"panicked because she worried about what might happen to her son if he were
admitted to a psychiatric ward, given his autism, and the behavior that could
result from his commitment." Id. at 343. Around 3:15 p.m., Guan called 911.
Officers Boyle and Larasaavedra responded to the 911 call and spoke to Guan at
Mount Sinai. Guan explained that her autistic son had been removed from her
home, she had been unable to see him, and she was worried about his safety.
She told the officers that she was "'concerned' that her adult autistic son had been
'provoked or hit . . . even rape[d]' inside the hospital's psychiatric ward." Id. at
336. Boyle testified that Guan was "irate," "shaking," and "visually very upset."
Id. at 65. He observed that she said "over and over" that "the government took
her kid, that her child was kidnapped, that we [the officers] are helping the
hospital kidnap her kid." Id.7
Larasaavedra spoke with Mount Sinai personnel about Alfred and
his living conditions, although he does not recall the details of the conversations.
The officers then left without taking any further action. They did not provide
any information to Guan as to Alfred's whereabouts or safety, despite her
inquiries and concerns. The officers instructed Guan not to continue to ask
hospital personnel about Alfred and warned her that if she failed to comply
"they would come back and take her away." Id. at 344.
After the officers left, Guan grew increasingly worried about Alfred.
She felt "'scared' and 'hopeless' because she feared that 'horrible' things might
happen to her son." Id. at 344. Although she had been led earlier to believe that
she could see her son at 6 p.m., as 6 p.m. approached, hospital staff told Guan,
without explanation, that she would not be permitted to see Alfred that day. Just
after 6 p.m., hospital security "forced" Guan to leave the premises. Id. Guan
remained in the vicinity and after a period of time, feeling "very cold and
desperate," called 911 again about her son. Id. She asked the 911 operator not to
send Boyle and Larasaavedra. Guan then re-entered Mount Sinai and informed
hospital security that she was there to await the police. She did not raise her
8
voice, act rudely, or behave badly. At that point hospital security called 911 and
reported that Guan was at Mount Sinai and trespassing.
Boyle and Larasaavedra returned to Mount Sinai around 8 p.m. and
met Guan and hospital staff in the emergency room. Larasaavedra spoke to a
doctor in the emergency room about Guan. As Guan has acknowledged, the
doctor (not identified by name) told Larasaavedra that Guan was "emotionally
disturbed, and that she needed to be seen by a psychiatrist, because of 'the way
she was acting.'" Id. at 345. 2 The doctor told Larasaavedra that "the hospital
wanted Ms. Guan out of the emergency room because 'they couldn't take her
anymore in there.'" Id. Hospital personnel told Larasaavedra that Guan "was in
their faces, yelling, screaming," and disruptive not only to the security guards
but also to the "people behind the desk." Id. at 77. 3 The officers then handcuffed
2 Larasaavedra testified that "they" (referring to hospital personnel) told the
officers that Guan "needed to be hospitalized and seen by a doctor," and that she was an
"EDP" -- an emotionally disturbed person. Joint App'x at 78, 79. While it is true that
Larasaavedra could not recall who made these comments, the substance of the comment
is not substantially different from what Guan conceded the officers were told in her
Rule 56.1 counterstatement of material facts.
3 Boyle testified that, at least during their second encounter, Guan was "yelling"
and "screaming," Joint App'x at 65, 68, but Guan denies that she yelled or screamed, id.
at 345, and so we assume she did not. Even assuming she had not been yelling and
screaming, however, this is what hospital personnel told the officers. In these
circumstances, it was not unreasonable for the officers to accept and rely upon these
representations. See Martinez v. Simonetti, 202 F.3d 625, 634 (2d Cir. 2000).
9
Guan, removed her from Mount Sinai, and called for an ambulance to transport
her to a different hospital. At that point, she had been at Mount Sinai (or in the
vicinity) for approximately nine hours. Larasaavedra made a note at 8:01 p.m.:
"female incoherent, irrational," but "non-violent." Id. at 345.
Emergency medical technicians ("EMTs") then transported Guan to
another hospital, Metropolitan Hospital Center ("Metropolitan"), where she was
subjected, without her consent, to an emergency psychiatric evaluation. The
EMTs noted in their report that they had been advised by Mount Sinai that
Guan's "son was removed from [Guan's] residence by Adult Protective Services
because of unsanitary living conditions." Id. at 86. 4 They further reported that
while Guan denied hallucinations and any suicidal or homicidal ideation, she
claimed that her "son is being raped while in [Mount Sinai] as she's being
detained by NYPD." Id. After a psychiatric evaluation at Metropolitan, Guan
was discharged at 11:33 p.m. She was never charged with trespass or any other
crime. She was not able to see her son until 2 p.m. the next day.
4 The officers were also told about concerns of unsanitary conditions in Guan's
home, that the home was "unlivable, because [Guan] was a hoarder." Joint App'x at 74.
10
B. The Proceedings Below
On March 16, 2018, proceeding pro se, Guan commenced this action
against the City and the officers alleging false arrest. On August 8, 2018, she
filed an amended complaint, pro se but with assistance from a legal clinic,
asserting false arrest claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 against the
City and Officers Boyle and Larasaavedra. 5 In November 2018, pro bono counsel
(attorneys from a law firm) made a "limited appearance" for Guan, but counsel
thereafter moved to withdraw because of apparent difficulties in their
relationship with Guan. The magistrate judge supervising the case (Moses, J.)
denied the motion. In July 2019, new pro bono counsel -- from the same clinic that
had helped Guan prepare her amended complaint -- was substituted into the
case for Guan, "for the limited purpose of taking and defending fact depositions,"
and the depositions were indeed thereafter conducted with the assistance of
counsel. Joint App'x at 387.
In November 2019, defendants moved for summary judgment.
Again proceeding pro se, Guan opposed the motion. On September 18, 2020, the
magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation recommending that the
motion be granted as to the City and denied as to the two police officers. On
11
October 29, 2020, the district court (Daniels, J.) issued its memorandum decision
granting the motion in full. The district court concluded that although the
probable cause analysis for a mental health arrest differed from the probable
cause analysis for a trespass arrest, "so long as probable cause existed for the
Officer Defendants to seize and detain Plaintiff for any reason," Guan's false
arrest claim would fail. Special App'x at 40. The district court further concluded
that because it was undisputed that probable cause existed for the trespass arrest,
the officers were entitled to summary judgment. Alternatively, the district court
held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity, concluding that a
reasonable police officer could have concluded that Guan was a danger to herself
or others. The district court also concluded that the City was entitled to
summary judgment. 6 Judgment dismissing the amended complaint was entered
on October 30, 2020.
This appeal followed.
5 Although the amended complaint cited both §§ 1981 and 1983, the district court
construed the claims as false arrest claims under § 1983 and state law. On appeal, Guan
treats the claim as a "single claim," pursuant to § 1983, alleging a "false mental health
arrest" in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Pl.-Appellant's Brief at
11, 15.
6 On appeal, Guan does not challenge the dismissal of the claims against the City.
12
DISCUSSION
We review a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo,
construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing
summary judgment and drawing all reasonable inferences in her favor. See Dish
Network Corp. v. Ace American Ins. Co., 21 F.4th 207, 212 (2d Cir. 2021). Summary
judgment is appropriate where no genuine issue of material fact exists for trial
and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See id.A. Applicable Law
1. False Arrest
In analyzing § 1983 false arrest claims, we look to the law of the state
in which the arrest occurred. See Davis v. Rodriguez, 364 F.3d 424, 433 (2d Cir.
2004). In New York, to prevail on a false arrest claim, a plaintiff must show that:
"(1) the defendant intended to confine the plaintiff, (2) the plaintiff was conscious
of the confinement, (3) the plaintiff did not consent to the confinement and (4)
the confinement was not otherwise privileged." Curry v. City of Syracuse, 316 F.3d
324, 335 (2d Cir. 2003) (internal brackets omitted).
An arrest is privileged if it is based on probable cause, for probable
cause is a complete defense to a false arrest claim. See, e.g., Figueroa v. Mazza, 825
13
F.3d 89, 99 (2d Cir. 2016) ("The existence of probable cause to arrest . . . will
defeat a claim of false arrest under the Fourth Amendment."); Jaegly v. Couch, 439
F.3d 149, 152 (2d Cir. 2006) ("Under New York law, the existence of probable
cause is an absolute defense to a false arrest claim."); De Lourdes Torres v. Jones, 26
N.Y.3d 742, 759 (2016) ("For purposes of the privilege element of a false arrest
and imprisonment claim, an act of confinement is privileged if it stems from a
lawful arrest supported by probable cause."). To determine the existence of
probable cause, a court considers the totality of the circumstances, Jenkins v. City
of New York, 478 F.3d 76, 90 (2d Cir. 2007), based on "a full sense of the evidence
that led the officer to believe that there was probable cause to make an arrest."
Stansbury v. Wertman, 721 F.3d 84, 93 (2d Cir. 2013). The court considers "those
facts available to the officer at the time of the arrest and immediately before it."
Fabrikant v. French, 691 F.3d 193, 214 (2d Cir. 2012) (quoting Panetta v. Crowley,
460 F.3d 388, 395 (2d Cir. 2006)). "The significance of each of these factors may be
enhanced or diminished by surrounding circumstances." Jenkins, 478 F.3d at 90.
A false arrest claim may be based on an arrest for law enforcement
purposes (such as criminal trespass) or an arrest for an emergency psychiatric
evaluation. See Myers v. Patterson, 819 F.3d 625, 632 (2d Cir. 2016). The
14
constitutional protections against an unreasonable arrest "adhere[] whether the
seizure is for purposes of law enforcement or due to an individual's mental
illness." Id. But a different probable cause analysis applies to each type of arrest.
For a law enforcement arrest, police officers have probable cause to
arrest when they reasonably believe that "the person to be arrested has
committed or is committing a crime." Hernandez v. United States, 939 F.3d 191,
199 (2d Cir. 2019) (quoting Posr v. Court Officer Shield No. 207, 180 F.3d 409, 414
(2d Cir. 1999)); see also De Lourdes Torres, 26 N.Y.3d at 759 ("Probable cause
consists of such facts and circumstances as would lead a reasonably prudent
person in like circumstances to believe plaintiff guilty." (quoting Colon v. City of
New York, 60 N.Y.2d 78, 82 (1983)). On the other hand, for a mental health arrest,
police officers must have "reasonable grounds for believing that the person
seized is dangerous to herself or others." Anthony v. City of New York, 339 F.3d
129, 137 (2d Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted); accord Green v. City of
New York, 465 F.3d 65, 83-84 (2d Cir. 2006) (requiring a showing of
15
dangerousness for seizure and transportation to hospital for treatment or
evaluation). 7
In general, a plaintiff cannot recover damages on a § 1983 false arrest
claim for an arrest that was supported by probable cause, even if the arresting
officer lacked probable cause to arrest the plaintiff for the actual charge invoked.
Jaegly, 439 F.3d at 154. In other words, if probable cause existed to arrest a
defendant for a criminal violation, "it is not relevant whether probable cause
existed with respect to each individual charge, or, indeed, any charge actually
invoked by the arresting officer at the time of arrest." Id. This is so because
"compensable damages in a successful false arrest claim stem from injuries
associated with the detention itself, and not with the individual charges." Id.The Jaegly decision was informed by Devenpeck v. Alford, where the
Supreme Court held that the probable cause inquiry is based on whether the
7 New York Mental Hygiene Law § 9.39 provides that a hospital may admit for
"immediate observation, care, and treatment" "any person alleged to have a mental
illness for which immediate observation, care, and treatment in a hospital is appropriate
and which is likely to result in serious harm to himself or others." N.Y. Mental Hygiene
L. § 9.39. "Likelihood to result in serious harm" means "a substantial risk of physical
harm to [the individual] himself as manifested by threats of or attempts at suicide or
serious bodily harm or other conduct demonstrating that he is dangerous to himself," or
"a substantial risk of physical harm to other persons as manifested by homicidal or
other violent behavior by which others are placed in reasonable fear of serious physical
harm." Id.16
arresting officer had objective probable cause to arrest for any offense, not
whether the officer had probable cause to arrest for the specific offense invoked
at the time of the arrest. 543 U.S. 146, 153 (2004). In Devenpeck, a false arrest case,
police officers stopped Alford and pulled him over in his car because they
believed he had been impersonating a police officer. They eventually arrested
him for what they believed was a violation of the Washington Privacy Act -- tape
recording their conversation with him during the traffic stop. Id. at 149. As it
turned out, the officers were wrong, for Alford's taping of the conversation was
not a crime. Id. at 151. The Supreme Court held, however, that if the officers had
probable cause to arrest Alford for impersonating a police officer, his false arrest
claim would be precluded, even if probable cause did not exist for a Privacy Act
arrest. Id. at 151-53. The Court held that it was not necessary that the offense
actually invoked (here, the Privacy Act violation) be "closely related" to the crime
for which probable cause did exist (impersonating a police officer). Id. at 153.
Devenpeck and Jaegly involved arrests only for criminal violations;
they did not involve a mental health arrest. Devenpeck, 543 U.S. at 149-50; Jaegly,
439 F.3d at 151.
17
2. Qualified Immunity
Even where actual probable cause does not exist, police officers may
be entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 false arrest claim if their actions
did not violate "clearly established" rights or if "arguable probable cause" existed
at the time of the arrest. Dancy v. McGinley, 843 F.3d 93, 106-07 (2d Cir. 2016)
(quoting Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009)); Figueroa, 825 F.3d at 100;
accord District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577, 591 (2018) ("Even assuming the
officers lacked actual probable cause to arrest the partygoers, [the officers] are
entitled to qualified immunity because . . . they reasonably but mistakenly
concluded that probable cause was present." (cleaned up)). The qualified
immunity defense is also available to officers making a mental health arrest. See
Myers, 819 F.3d at 633 (considering whether officers in a false mental health
arrest case had arguable probable cause and were protected by qualified
immunity); Kerman v. City of New York, 261 F.3d 229, 238-39 (2d Cir. 2001) (same).
A defendant has the burden of proving the affirmative defense of qualified
immunity. See Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640-41 (1980).
First, police officers are immune if "their conduct does not violate
clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person
18
would have known." Dancy, 843 F.3d at 106 (quoting Pearson, 555 U.S. at 231). A
right is "clearly established" when "the contours of the right are sufficiently clear
that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that
right." Jackler v. Byrne, 658 F.3d 225, 242 (2d Cir. 2011) (cleaned up) (quoting
Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 (1987)). Moreover, if reasonable officers
could disagree "on the legality of the action at issue in its particular factual
context," the officer is entitled to qualified immunity. Walczyk v. Rio, 496 F.3d
139, 154 (2d Cir. 2007).
Second, police officers are immune from a false arrest claim if
"arguable probable cause" existed for the arrest. Dancy, 843 F.3d at 107. "A
police officer has arguable probable cause if either (a) it was objectively
reasonable for the officer to believe that probable cause existed, or (b) officers of
reasonable competence could disagree on whether the probable cause test was
met." Figueroa, 825 F.3d at 100 (internal quotation marks omitted). The question
is "not whether the officer should have acted as he did." Id. (emphasis in original).
Instead, it is "whether any reasonable officer, out of the wide range of reasonable
people who enforce the laws in this country, could have determined that"
probable cause existed. Id. (emphasis in original). Indeed, as the Supreme Court
19
has repeatedly recognized, "qualified immunity protects 'all but the plainly
incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.'" Ziglar v. Abbasi, 137 S. Ct.
1843, 1867 (2017) (quoting Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986)); see also
Stanton v. Sims, 571 U.S. 3, 6 (2013) (same). Whether a particular officer falls into
either of these categories turns on "whether it would have been clear to a
reasonable officer that the alleged conduct was unlawful in the situation he
confronted." Id. at 1867 (internal quotation marks omitted).
B. Application
As a threshold matter, the parties agree that the only element of
Guan's false arrest claim in contention is whether her arrest was privileged, that
is, whether the officers had probable cause to arrest her. Guan does not
challenge the district court's conclusion that the officers had probable cause to
arrest her for criminal trespass. The parties disagree, however, as to whether the
officers had probable cause to arrest her for an emergency mental health
evaluation. The district court did not decide the issue, but held that, under
Devenpeck and Jaegly, the existence of probable cause to arrest Guan for trespass
precluded her mental health false arrest claim, and that, in any event, the officers
had arguable probable cause under the mental health arrest standard. Two
20
issues are thus presented: first, whether the existence of probable cause to arrest
Guan for trespass precludes her claim for false arrest arising from an arrest for an
emergency mental health evaluation; and, second, whether, assuming the mental
health false arrest claim is not precluded, the officers are nevertheless protected
by qualified immunity.
1. Probable Cause
We hold that the existence of probable cause to arrest an individual
for a criminal violation does not preclude a false arrest claim based on a
wrongful arrest for a mental health evaluation. Hence, we conclude that the
district court erred in holding that probable cause for a trespass arrest obviated
the need for probable cause for a mental health arrest.
First, as discussed above, different inquiries are required for the two
types of arrest. Probable cause to arrest for a criminal violation such as trespass
is not a sufficient basis to arrest an individual for an emergency mental health
evaluation. An officer must do more than consider whether the individual in
question has committed or is committing a crime. Rather, to make a mental
health arrest, police officers must consider whether probable cause exists to
believe the individual is a danger to herself or others, that is, whether there is a
21
substantial risk of serious physical harm to herself or others. See Kerman, 261
F.3d at 237; Green, 465 F.3d at 83-84; see also O'Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563,
575 (1975) ("[T]here is still no constitutional basis for confining [mentally ill]
persons involuntarily if they are dangerous to no one and can live safely in
freedom.").
Second, mental health arrests are different in nature from criminal
arrests and different damages may result if a person is falsely arrested for an
emergency mental health evaluation. A mental health false arrest claim arises
from both the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable mental
health seizures and the Fourteenth Amendment's due process protections.
Myers, 819 F.3d at 632; Rodriguez v. City of New York, 72 F.3d 1051, 1061 (2d Cir.
1995). In Jaegly, we reasoned that the compensable damages for a false arrest
claim -- referring to a criminal arrest -- "stem from injuries associated with the
detention itself, and not with the individual charges." 439 F.3d at 149. A mental
health false arrest, however, leads to injuries of a different nature than those
resulting from a law enforcement arrest. As the Supreme Court has observed in
a case involving the transfer of an individual convicted of a crime from a prison
to a mental hospital:
22
We have recognized that for the ordinary citizen, commitment to a
mental hospital produces a massive curtailment of liberty, . . . and in
consequence requires due process protection . . . The loss of liberty
produced by an involuntary commitment is more than a loss of
freedom from confinement. It is indisputable that commitment to a
mental hospital can engender adverse social consequences to the
individual and that [w]hether we label this phenomena 'stigma' or
choose to call it something else . . . we recognize that it can occur
and that it can have a very significant impact on the individual.
Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480, 491-92 (1980) (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted); accord Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 425-26 (1979).
Third, as noted above, neither Devenpeck nor Jaegly involved a
mental health arrest, and they did not consider the issue of whether the existence
of probable cause for a criminal arrest precludes a claim for a false mental health
arrest. See Devenpeck, 543 U.S. at 149-50; Jaegly, 439 F.3d at 151. Indeed, the first
paragraph of Devenpeck states that "[t]his case presents the question whether an
arrest is lawful under the Fourth Amendment when the criminal offense for which
there is probable cause to arrest is not 'closely related' to the offense stated by the
arresting officer at the time of arrest." Devenpeck, 543 U.S. at 148 (emphasis
added). The case was about "a series of possible criminal offenses," id. at 150, and
the basis for a mental health arrest -- dangerousness to oneself or others -- is not a
"criminal offense[]." Nor is there any language in Jaegly to suggest that this court
23
contemplated expanding the limited rule in Devenpeck to mental health cases.
And even after Devenpeck and Jaegly were decided, we still required a finding of
dangerousness for a mental health arrest, as we reiterated that "[t]o handcuff and
detain, even briefly, a person for mental-health reasons, an officer must have
probable cause to believe that the person presented a risk of harm to herself or
others." Myers, 819 F.3d at 632 (cleaned up).
Accordingly, we hold that the district court erred in construing
Devenpeck and Jaegly to bar a mental health false arrest claim based on the mere
existence of probable cause to arrest for criminal trespass. Even though probable
cause existed to arrest Guan for trespass, the police officers had to have reason to
believe that she was a danger to herself or others to arrest her for an emergency
mental health evaluation. 8
8 We note that when police officers confront a person who may be mentally ill and
in need of assistance, there are alternatives to arresting the person. See Frank Sirotich,
The Criminal Justice Outcomes of Jail Diversion Programs for Persons with Mental Illness: A
Review of the Evidence, 37 J. Am. Acad. Psychiatry L. 461, 462-63 (2009) (describing, for
individuals who did not meet civil commitment criteria, alternatives to mental health
arrests such as police connecting mentally ill individuals with community-based mental
health service providers).
24
The district court did not decide whether the officers had actual
probable cause for a mental health arrest. Likewise, we do not reach the issue,
for we conclude that the officers are protected by qualified immunity.
2. Qualified Immunity
Even assuming the officers did not have actual probable cause to
make a mental health arrest, they would still be protected from liability if, at the
time of the arrest, it was not "clearly established" that their conduct would violate
Guan's rights or if they had arguable probable cause for a mental health arrest.
We conclude that the officers here are protected by qualified immunity in both
respects. 9
a. Clearly Established Law
It certainly was clearly established, at the time of Guan's arrest, that
an officer had probable cause to arrest an individual for a mental health
evaluation only if the officer had reason to believe there was a risk of serious
9 Guan suggests on appeal that the officers waived the argument that the law was
not clearly established at the time of the arrest because they did not raise the argument
below. Even assuming that is true, the rule that an appellate court will not consider an
issue raised for the first time on appeal is prudential, not jurisdictional, and on occasion
we have exercised this discretion to address a new argument on appeal when
circumstances warrant that we do so. See Bogle-Assegai v. Connecticut, 470 F.3d 498, 504
(2d Cir. 2006). We exercise our discretion to reach the question here.
25
physical harm to the individual or others. See, e.g., Anthony, 339 F.3d at 137;
Green, 465 F.3d at 83-84. It was not clearly established, however, that where
police officers had probable cause to arrest a person for a criminal offense, they
had to make a separate probable cause determination to arrest the person for an
emergency psychiatric evaluation.
Devenpeck was decided in 2004 and Jaegly was decided in 2006. In
the context of false arrest claims arising from criminal arrests, both cases stand
for the proposition that probable cause to arrest for any one charge obviated the
need for probable cause to arrest for the actual charge invoked. Guan was
arrested in 2017, and no case had made clear by then that police officers could not
arrest an individual for a mental health arrest when probable cause existed for a
criminal arrest, without an additional finding of dangerousness. Indeed, to the
contrary, some district courts had held that the existence of probable cause for a
criminal arrest rendered a mental health arrest privileged for purposes of a false
26
arrest or imprisonment claim, relying on Jaegly. 10 While we decided Myers,
which reiterated the dangerousness requirement for a mental health arrest, in
2016, after Devenpeck and Jaegly, Myers did not address the situation now at hand:
a mental health arrest where probable cause existed for an arrest for a criminal
offense.
Accordingly, we hold that Boyle and Larasaavedra are protected by
qualified immunity because it was not clearly established when they arrested
Guan in 2017 that they had to have probable cause to arrest her for an emergency
psychiatric examination when they had probable cause to arrest her for criminal
trespass.
b. Arguable Probable Cause
We also conclude, independent of the state of the law in 2017, that
the two officers had at least arguable probable cause to take Guan into custody
10 See, e.g., Quon v. Henry, No. 14-CV-9909, 2017 WL 1406279, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Mar.
27, 2017) ("although Officers Grant and Henry ultimately decided to hospitalize Quon
rather than place him under arrest, they had probable cause to arrest him for
obstruction, which is sufficient to defeat Quon's false arrest claim," citing Jaegly);
Nicholas v. City of Binghamton, No. 10-CV-1565, 2012 WL 3261409, at *6 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 8,
2012) (holding that, even assuming probable cause did not exist for mental health arrest,
existence of probable cause for disorderly conduct was sufficient to preclude false arrest
claim, citing Jaegly).
27
for an emergency mental health evaluation. The undisputed facts show the
following:
Guan was at Mount Sinai for some nine hours, and she gave no
indication that she would leave voluntarily. By her own account, at various
times during the day she felt "panicked," was "scared," felt "hopeless," and was
"very cold and desperate." Joint App'x at 343-44. The officers observed that she
was "irate," "shaking," "visually very upset," "incoherent," and "irrational." Id. at
65, 76. The officers were told by hospital personnel that she had been "yelling"
and "screaming," and that she was "disruptive." Id. at 77. Guan repeatedly told
the officers and others that the hospital had kidnapped her son and was raping
him. Id. at 65, 86, 336. She even accused the police officers of "helping the
hospital kidnap her kid." Id. at 65. Hospital security called 911 for police
assistance twice, id. at 37, 339, and Guan called 911 herself at least two times. Id.
at 186-87. A doctor told one of the officers that Guan was "emotionally
disturbed, and that she needed to be seen by a psychiatrist, because of 'the way
she was acting.'" Id. at 345. Hospital personnel told the officers that Guan was
an "EDP," an emotionally disturbed person, who needed to be hospitalized. Id. at
28
78, 79, 345. And Adult Protective Services had removed Guan's son from the
home because of concerns for his well-being.
While Guan denies that she was yelling and screaming or behaving
inappropriately, it cannot reasonably be disputed that the officers were told and
saw for themselves that Guan was distraught, emotionally disturbed, making
wild accusations, and behaving erratically, including refusing to leave Mount
Sinai after nine hours. Medical personnel -- including doctors who presumably
knew the standards for an involuntary psychiatric evaluation -- were telling the
officers that Guan needed to be hospitalized. Even assuming the hospital
personnel exaggerated when they described her conduct to the officers, Guan
does not seriously dispute what the officers were told. The officers also knew
Guan's son had been removed from the home. On these facts, officers of
reasonable competence could surely have disagreed as to whether probable
cause existed to take Guan into custody for an emergency psychiatric evaluation.
See Figueroa, 825 F.3d at 100. We cannot conclude, in the totality of
circumstances, that no reasonable police officer, "out of the wide range of
reasonable people who enforce the laws in this country, could have determined
that" probable cause existed for a mental health arrest, that is, that probable
29
cause existed to believe that Guan presented a danger to herself or others,
including her son. Id. (emphasis in original); see also Ziglar, 137 S. Ct. at 1867.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the district court
dismissing the amended complaint is AFFIRMED. No costs.
30