Rakes v. Roederer, 2024 WL 4284213 (7th Cir. 2024)
In Charlestown, Indiana, Officers Roederer and Johnson responded to a 911 report of two people fighting in the street, one of whom possibly had a gun. Officers Roederer and Johnson drove into the neighborhood and saw two cars stopped in the road. RJ Slaymaker was outside of his vehicle, standing next to another car. His wife, Amylyn Slaymaker, was sitting in the driver’s seat of the other car.
As officers approached RJ Slaymaker and directed him to raise his hands and walk toward them, Amylyn Slaymaker shouted, “He has a gun!” Assuming she was referring to RJ, the officers handcuffed the man and removed a handgun from his waistband. Amylyn told the officers RJ experienced post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and was intoxicated. She also reported RJ said he would kill her and her children. In the past, she continued, RJ had threatened suicide whenever she raised the possibility of divorce.
The officers decided RJ was not so intoxicated as to warrant a custodial arrest and there was not sufficient evidence to arrest him for assault. They spoke with RJ about his well-being and persuaded him to go to a hospital for a voluntary mental health assessment. Officer Johnson allegedly told Amylyn that RJ would be kept at the hospital under a 24-hour mental health hold. Amylyn told the officers she would go to her mother’s home after retrieving necessary items from her house. After the assessment by medical staff, RJ was discharged from the hospital. Upon returning to the house he shared with his wife, he shot and killed Amylyn, then himself.
Amylyn’s estate sued the officers, claiming they created a danger by telling Amylyn that RJ would be held for 24 hours, thus making her believe it was safe to return home. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the officers on the basis of qualified immunity.
A divided appellate court affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the officer who did not speak directly with Amylyn. The court reversed the judgment regarding the second officer, opining a jury could reasonably infer he misled Amylyn about RJ’s detention, creating a danger she would not have otherwise faced. The court held the officer’s actions could be a violation of clearly established law under the state-created danger doctrine.
Police officers have a general duty to serve and to protect. Officers do not, however, have a specific duty to protect any individual, with two narrow exceptions. A duty to an individual may be based on a “special relationship” exception, such as when a person is in police custody, and a “state-created danger” exception, when officers create the situation that exposes a person to danger. The state-created danger exception is a “narrow one,” and courts apply it in “rare and often egregious” circumstances. The state has no duty to protect citizens from private violence (Doe v. Village of Arlington Heights, 782 F.3d 911 (7th Cir. 2015)). The plaintiff in this case argued that the state-created danger exception applied to the officer’s alleged assurance that RJ would be held for 24 hours.
The majority of state and federal courts have adopted some form of the state-created danger theory. To succeed on a claim of injury resulting from a state-created danger, a plaintiff must show:
- The state actor affirmatively created or increased a danger faced by an individual.
- The state actor’s failure to protect an individual from such a danger was the proximate cause of the injury to the individual.
- The state actor’s failure to protect the individual must “shock the conscience.”
One of the appellate court judges asserted the officers did not act affirmatively to create or increase danger to Amylyn, proximately cause Amylyn’s death, or act in a manner that shocks the conscience. The other two differed in reasoning but held the officer was not entitled to qualified immunity and the case should advance to trial.
We can learn two clear lessons from this case. First, as one of the judges wrote in the clarity of hindsight, “this case should sound the equivalent of a five-alarm fire for police departments to the risks of domestic violence.… When you read the facts, you can see the tragic ending coming from a mile away with about 100% certainty.” In fact, the opinion stated, “No matter how many times I review the record, the same conclusion rushes to mind: police departments ought to prioritize training on responses to domestic violence.”
Second, officers must be very careful not to make promises or give assurances they cannot guarantee. Making promises of safety or protection will create a significant disadvantage for the officers’ defense should the case proceed to trial.
Sadly, the officer who assured Amylyn Slaymaker she would be safe for 24 hours died of natural causes shortly after the incident. Both he and Amylyn Slaymaker are dead, but the tragic events they were involved in serve as a serious warning about promises made in the line of duty.
