board
county
commissioners
bryan
county
oklahoma
brown
et
argued
november
decided
april
held
county
liable
sheriff
moore
isolated
decision
hire
burns
without
adequate
screening
respondent
demonstrated
decision
reflected
conscious
disregard
high
risk
burns
use
excessive
force
violation
respondent
federally
protected
right
pp
municipality
may
held
liable
solely
employs
tortfeasor
see
monell
new
york
city
dept
social
instead
plaintiff
must
identify
municipal
policy
custom
caused
injury
see
pembaur
cincinnati
contrary
respondent
contention
policy
giving
rise
liability
established
merely
identifying
policymaker
conduct
isproperly
attributable
municipality
plaintiff
must
also
demonstrate
deliberate
conduct
municipality
moving
force
behind
injury
alleged
see
monell
supra
plaintiff
must
show
municipal
action
taken
requisite
degree
culpability
must
demonstrate
direct
causal
link
municipal
action
deprivation
federal
rights
pp
respondent
claim
policymaker
single
facially
lawful
hiring
decision
trigger
municipal
liability
presents
difficult
problems
proof
recognized
cause
action
based
single
decision
attributable
municipality
evidence
municipality
acted
plaintiff
suffered
deprivation
federal
rights
also
proved
fault
causation
see
pembaur
supra
relying
heavily
pembaur
respondent
blurs
distinction
cases
present
difficult
fault
causation
questions
claims
present
involve
allegation
municipal
action
violated
federal
law
directed
authorized
deprivation
federal
rights
require
application
rigorous
culpability
causation
standards
order
ensure
municipality
held
liable
solely
employees
actions
canton
harris
example
held
plaintiff
seeking
establish
municipal
liability
theory
facially
lawful
municipal
action
allegedly
inadequate
training
program
led
employee
violate
plaintiff
rights
must
demonstrate
municipal
action
simply
negligent
taken
deliberate
indifference
known
obvious
consequences
respondent
reliance
canton
analogy
failure
train
cases
inadequate
screening
cases
persuasive
leaving
open
possibility
municipal
liability
triggered
evidence
single
violation
federal
rights
accompanied
showing
municipality
failed
train
employees
handle
recurring
situations
presenting
obvious
potential
violation
canton
simply
hypothesized
narrow
range
circumstances
violation
may
highly
predictable
consequence
failure
train
thereby
justify
finding
deliberate
indifference
policymakers
predicting
consequence
single
hiring
decision
even
one
based
inadequate
assessment
record
far
difficult
adequate
scrutiny
applicant
background
lead
reasonable
policymaker
conclude
plainly
obvious
consequence
decision
hire
applicant
deprivation
third
party
federally
protected
right
official
failure
adequately
scrutinize
applicant
background
constitute
deliberate
indifference
neither
district
appeals
directly
tested
whether
burns
background
made
use
excessive
force
making
arrest
plainly
obvious
consequence
hiring
decision
pp
even
assuming
without
deciding
proof
single
instance
inadequate
screening
ever
trigger
municipal
liability
moore
failure
scrutinize
burns
record
constitute
deliberate
indifference
respondent
federally
protected
right
free
use
excessive
force
test
link
moore
action
respondent
injury
must
asked
whether
full
review
burns
record
reveals
moore
concluded
burns
use
excessive
force
plainly
obvious
consequence
decision
hire
burns
respondent
showing
point
inadequate
primary
infractions
relies
prove
burns
propensity
violence
arose
single
college
fight
full
review
burns
record
might
well
led
moore
conclude
burns
extremely
poor
deputy
candidate
necessarily
reached
decision
burns
use
excessive
force
plainly
obvious
consequence
decision
hire
district
therefore
erred
submitting
inadequate
screening
theory
jury
pp
vacated
remanded
delivered
opinion
rehnquist
scalia
kennedy
thomas
joined
souter
filed
dissenting
opinion
stevens
breyer
joined
breyer
filed
dissenting
opinion
stevens
ginsburg
joined
notice
opinion
subject
formal
revision
publication
preliminary
print
reports
readers
requested
notify
reporter
decisions
wash
ington
typographical
formal
errors
order
corrections
may
made
preliminary
print
goes
press
board
county
commissioners
bryan
county
oklahoma
petitioner
jill
brown
et
al
writ
certiorari
appeals
fifth
circuit
april
justice
delivered
opinion
respondent
jill
brown
brought
claim
damages
petitioner
bryan
county
rev
stat
alleged
county
police
officer
used
excessive
force
arresting
county
liable
injuries
based
sheriff
hiring
training
decisions
prevailed
claims
county
following
jury
trial
appeals
fifth
circuit
affirmed
judgment
county
basis
hiring
claim
alone
granted
certiorari
conclude
appeals
decision
squared
recognition
enacting
congress
intend
impose
liability
municipality
unless
deliberate
action
attributable
municipality
moving
force
behind
plaintiff
deprivation
federal
rights
monell
new
york
city
dept
social
early
morning
hours
may
respondent
jill
brown
husband
driving
grayson
county
texas
home
bryan
county
oklahoma
crossing
oklahoma
approached
police
checkpoint
brown
driving
decided
avoid
checkpoint
return
texas
seeing
browns
truck
turn
away
checkpoint
bryan
county
deputy
sheriff
robert
morrison
reserve
deputy
stacy
burns
pursued
vehicle
although
parties
versions
events
differ
trial
deputies
claimed
patrol
car
reached
speeds
excess
miles
per
hour
brown
testified
unaware
deputies
attempts
overtake
chase
finally
ended
four
miles
south
police
checkpoint
got
squad
car
deputy
sheriff
morrison
pointed
gun
toward
browns
vehicle
ordered
browns
raise
hands
reserve
deputy
burns
unarmed
rounded
corner
vehicle
passenger
side
burns
twice
ordered
respondent
jill
brown
vehicle
exit
used
arm
bar
technique
grabbing
respondent
arm
wrist
elbow
pulling
vehicle
spinning
ground
respondent
knees
severely
injured
later
underwent
corrective
surgery
ultimately
may
need
knee
replacements
respondent
sought
compensation
injuries
state
law
burns
bryan
county
sheriff
moore
county
respondent
claimed
among
things
bryan
county
liable
burns
alleged
use
excessive
force
based
sheriff
moore
decision
hire
burns
son
nephew
specifically
respondent
claimed
sheriff
moore
failed
adequately
review
burns
background
burns
record
driving
infractions
pleaded
guilty
various
driving
related
misdemeanors
including
assault
battery
resisting
arrest
public
drunkenness
oklahoma
law
preclude
hiring
anindividual
committed
misdemeanor
serve
peace
officer
see
okla
tit
requiring
hiring
agency
certify
prospective
officer
records
reflect
felony
conviction
trial
sheriff
moore
testified
obtained
burns
driving
record
report
burns
national
crime
information
center
closely
reviewed
either
sheriff
moore
authorized
burns
make
arrests
carry
weapon
operate
patrol
car
ruling
issue
district
dismissed
respondent
claim
sheriff
moore
prior
trial
app
counsel
bryan
county
stipulated
sheriff
moore
policy
maker
bryan
county
regarding
sheriff
department
close
respondent
case
close
evidence
bryan
county
moved
judgment
matter
law
respondent
claim
sheriff
moore
decision
hire
burns
triggered
municipal
liability
county
argued
single
hiring
decision
municipal
policymaker
give
rise
municipal
liability
district
denied
county
motions
also
overruled
county
objections
jury
instructions
claim
county
resolve
respondent
claims
jury
asked
answer
several
interrogatories
jury
concluded
stacy
burns
arrested
respondent
without
probable
cause
used
excessive
force
therefore
found
liable
respondent
injuries
also
found
hiring
policy
training
policy
bryan
county
case
stacy
burns
instituted
policymaker
moore
inadequate
amount
deliberate
indifference
constitutional
needs
plaintiff
district
entered
judgment
respondent
issue
bryancounty
liability
county
appealed
several
grounds
appeals
fifth
circuit
affirmed
held
among
things
bryan
county
properly
found
liable
based
sheriff
moore
decision
hire
burns
addressed
points
thought
merited
review
address
jury
determination
county
liability
based
inadequate
training
burns
granted
certiorari
decide
whether
county
properly
held
liable
respondent
injuries
based
sheriff
moore
single
decision
hire
burns
reverse
title
provides
relevant
part
every
person
color
statute
ordinance
regulation
custom
usage
state
territory
district
columbia
subjects
causes
subjected
citizen
person
within
jurisdiction
thereof
deprivation
rights
privileges
immunities
secured
constitution
laws
shall
liable
party
injured
action
law
suit
equity
proper
proceeding
redress
instead
monell
subsequent
cases
required
plaintiff
seeking
impose
liability
municipality
identify
municipal
policy
custom
caused
plaintiff
injury
see
monell
supra
pembaur
supra
canton
supra
locating
policy
ensures
municipality
held
liable
deprivations
resulting
decisions
duly
constituted
legislative
body
officials
whose
acts
may
fairly
said
municipality
monell
supra
similarly
act
performed
pursuant
custom
formally
approved
appropriate
decisionmaker
may
fairly
subject
municipality
liability
theory
relevant
practice
widespread
force
law
citing
adickes
kress
parties
join
issue
whether
monell
subsequent
cases
single
hiring
decision
county
sheriff
policy
triggers
municipal
liability
relying
decision
pembaur
respondent
claims
single
act
decisionmaker
final
authority
relevant
area
constitutes
policy
attributable
municipality
long
plaintiff
identifies
decision
properly
attributable
municipality
respondent
argues
risk
imposing
respondeat
superior
liability
whether
decision
intended
govern
situation
hand
serve
rule
applied
time
immaterial
rather
respondent
theory
identification
act
proper
municipal
decisionmaker
required
ensure
municipality
held
liable
conduct
appeals
accepted
respondent
approach
municipal
liability
jurisprudence
illustrates
however
enough
plaintiff
merely
identify
conduct
properly
attributable
municipality
plaintiff
must
also
demonstrate
deliberate
conduct
municipality
moving
force
behind
injury
alleged
plaintiff
must
show
municipal
action
taken
requisite
degree
culpability
must
demonstrate
direct
causal
link
municipal
action
deprivation
federal
rights
plaintiff
claims
particular
municipal
action
violates
federal
law
directs
employee
resolving
issues
fault
causation
straightforward
section
contains
state
mind
requirement
independent
necessary
state
violation
underlying
federal
right
daniels
williams
suit
however
plaintiff
must
establish
state
mind
required
prove
underlying
violation
accordingly
proof
municipality
legislative
body
authorized
decisionmaker
intentionally
deprived
plaintiff
federally
protected
right
necessarily
establishes
municipality
acted
culpably
similarly
conclusion
action
taken
directed
municipality
authorized
decisionmaker
violates
federal
law
also
determine
municipal
action
moving
force
behind
injury
plaintiff
complains
sheriff
moore
hiring
decision
legal
sheriff
moore
authorize
burns
use
excessive
force
respondent
claim
rather
single
facially
lawful
hiring
decision
launch
series
events
ultimately
cause
violation
federal
rights
plaintiff
claims
municipality
directly
inflicted
injury
nonetheless
caused
employee
rigorous
standards
culpability
causation
must
applied
ensure
municipality
held
liable
solely
actions
employee
see
canton
tuttle
supra
plurality
opinion
see
also
springfield
kibbe
dissent
dismissal
writ
improvidently
granted
relying
heavily
pembaur
respondent
blurs
distinction
cases
present
difficult
questions
fault
causation
extent
recognized
cause
action
based
single
decision
attributable
municipality
done
evidence
municipality
acted
plaintiff
suffered
deprivation
federal
rights
also
proved
fault
causation
example
owen
independence
newport
fact
concerts
involved
formal
decisions
municipal
legislative
bodies
owen
city
council
allegedly
censured
discharged
employee
without
hearing
fact
concerts
city
council
canceled
license
permitting
concert
following
dispute
performance
content
neither
decision
reflected
implementation
generally
applicable
rule
question
decision
duly
promulgated
city
lawmakers
trigger
municipal
liability
decision
found
unconstitutional
fault
causation
obvious
case
proof
municipality
decision
unconstitutional
suffice
establish
municipality
liable
plaintiff
constitutional
injury
similarly
pembaur
cincinnati
concerned
decision
county
prosecutor
acting
county
final
decisionmaker
direct
county
deputies
forcibly
enter
petitioner
place
business
serve
capiases
upon
third
parties
relying
owen
newport
concluded
final
decisionmaker
adoption
course
action
tailored
particular
situation
intended
control
decisions
later
situations
may
circumstances
give
rise
municipal
liability
pembaur
disputed
prosecutor
specifically
directed
action
resulting
deprivation
petitioner
rights
conclusion
decision
final
municipal
decisionmaker
therefore
properly
attributable
municipality
established
municipal
liability
questions
fault
causation
arose
claims
involving
allegation
municipal
action
violated
federal
law
directed
authorized
deprivation
federal
rights
present
much
difficult
problems
proof
plaintiff
suffered
deprivation
federal
rights
hands
municipal
employee
alone
permit
inference
municipal
culpability
causation
plaintiff
simply
shown
employee
acted
culpably
recognized
difficulties
canton
harris
supra
considered
claim
inadequate
training
shift
supervisors
city
jail
led
deprivation
detainee
constitutional
rights
weheld
quite
apart
state
mind
required
establish
underlying
constitutional
violation
case
violation
due
process
plaintiff
seeking
establish
municipal
liability
theory
facially
lawful
municipal
action
led
employee
violate
plaintiff
rights
must
demonstrate
municipal
action
taken
deliberate
indifference
known
obvious
consequences
showing
simple
even
heightened
negligence
suffice
concluded
canton
inadequate
training
claim
basis
liability
limited
circumstances
spoke
however
deficient
training
program
necessarily
intended
apply
time
multiple
employees
existence
program
makes
proof
fault
causation
least
possible
inadequate
training
case
program
prevent
constitutional
violations
municipal
decisionmakers
may
eventually
put
notice
new
program
called
continued
adherence
approach
know
know
failed
prevent
tortious
conduct
employees
may
establish
conscious
disregard
consequences
action
deliberate
indifference
necessary
trigger
municipal
liability
police
exercising
discretion
often
violate
constitutional
rights
need
training
must
plainly
obvious
city
policymakers
nevertheless
indifferent
need
concurring
part
dissenting
part
unicipal
liability
failure
train
may
proper
shown
policymakers
aware
acquiesced
pattern
constitutional
violations
addition
existence
pattern
tortious
conduct
inadequately
trained
employees
may
tend
show
lack
proper
training
rather
one
time
negligent
administration
program
factors
peculiar
officer
involved
particular
incident
moving
force
behind
plaintiff
injury
see
trial
counsel
bryan
county
stipulated
sheriff
moore
policy
maker
bryan
county
regarding
sheriff
department
app
indeed
county
sought
avoid
liability
claiming
board
commissioners
participated
policy
decisions
regarding
conduct
operation
office
bryan
county
sheriff
accepting
county
representations
case
presents
difficult
questions
concerning
whether
sheriff
moore
final
authority
act
municipality
hiring
matters
cf
jett
dallas
independent
school
louis
praprotnik
respondent
claim
identify
pattern
injuries
linked
sheriff
moore
hiring
practices
indeed
respondent
contend
sheriff
moore
hiring
practices
generally
defective
evidence
point
trial
suggested
sheriff
moore
adequately
screened
backgrounds
prior
deputies
hired
app
respondent
instead
seeks
trace
liability
described
deviation
sheriff
moore
ordinary
hiring
practices
claim
municipal
liability
rests
single
decision
representing
violation
federal
law
directing
violation
danger
municipality
held
liable
without
fault
high
decision
necessarily
governs
single
case
notice
municipal
decisionmaker
based
previous
violations
federally
protected
rights
approach
inadequate
readily
apparent
municipality
action
caused
injury
question
plaintiff
point
incident
tending
make
likely
plaintiff
owninjury
flows
municipality
action
rather
intervening
cause
canton
foreclose
possibility
evidence
single
violation
federal
rights
accompanied
showing
municipality
failed
train
employees
handle
recurring
situations
presenting
obvious
potential
violation
trigger
municipal
liability
may
happen
light
duties
assigned
specific
officers
employees
need
different
training
obvious
policymakers
city
reasonably
said
deliberately
indifferent
need
respondent
purports
rely
canton
arguing
burns
use
excessive
force
plainly
obvious
consequence
sheriff
moore
failure
screen
burns
record
essence
respondent
claims
showing
obviousness
demonstrate
sheriff
moore
acted
conscious
disregard
consequences
action
sheriff
action
directly
caused
injuries
thus
substitute
pattern
injuries
ordinarily
necessary
establish
municipal
culpability
causation
proffered
analogy
failure
train
cases
inadequate
screening
cases
persuasive
leaving
open
canton
possibility
plaintiff
might
succeed
carrying
failure
train
claim
without
showing
pattern
constitutional
violations
simply
hypothesized
narrow
range
circumstances
violation
federal
rights
may
highly
predictable
consequence
failure
equip
law
enforcement
officers
specific
tools
handle
recurring
situations
likelihood
situation
recur
predictability
officer
lacking
specific
tools
handle
situation
violate
citizens
rights
justify
finding
policymakers
decision
train
officer
reflected
deliberateindifference
obvious
consequence
policymakers
choice
namely
violation
specific
constitutional
statutory
right
high
degree
predictability
may
also
support
inference
causation
municipality
indifference
led
directly
consequence
predictable
plaintiff
presents
claim
premised
upon
inadequacy
official
review
prospective
applicant
record
however
particular
danger
municipality
held
liable
injury
directly
caused
deliberate
action
attributable
municipality
every
injury
suffered
hands
municipal
employee
traced
hiring
decision
sense
municipality
decision
hire
employee
plaintiff
suffered
injury
prevent
municipal
liability
hiring
decision
collapsing
respondeat
superior
liability
must
carefully
test
link
policymaker
inadequate
decision
particular
injury
alleged
attempting
import
reasoning
canton
hiring
context
respondent
ignores
fact
predicting
consequence
single
hiring
decision
even
one
based
inadequate
assessment
record
far
difficult
predicting
might
flow
failure
train
single
law
enforcement
officer
specific
skill
necessary
discharge
duties
decision
canton
makes
clear
deliberate
indifference
stringent
standard
fault
requiring
proof
municipal
actor
disregarded
known
obvious
consequence
action
unlike
risk
particular
glaring
omission
training
regimen
risk
single
instance
inadequate
screening
applicant
background
obvious
abstract
rather
depends
upon
background
applicant
lack
scrutiny
may
increase
likelihood
unfit
officer
hired
unfit
officer
placed
particular
position
affect
rights
citizens
act
improperly
generalized
showing
risk
fact
inadequate
scrutiny
applicant
background
make
violation
rights
likely
alone
give
rise
inference
policymaker
failure
scrutinize
record
particular
applicant
produced
specific
constitutional
violation
full
screening
applicant
background
might
reveal
cause
concern
hiring
official
failed
scrutinize
applicant
background
said
consciously
disregarded
obvious
risk
officer
subsequently
inflict
particular
constitutional
injury
assume
jury
properly
find
case
sheriff
moore
assessment
burns
background
inadequate
sheriff
moore
testimony
indicated
inquire
underlying
conduct
disposition
misdemeanor
charges
reflected
burns
record
hiring
showing
instance
inadequate
screening
enough
establish
deliberate
indifference
layman
terms
inadequate
screening
applicant
record
may
reflect
indifference
applicant
background
purposes
legal
inquiry
municipal
liability
however
relevant
indifference
plaintiff
must
demonstrate
municipal
decision
reflects
deliberate
indifference
risk
violation
particular
constitutional
statutory
right
follow
decision
adequate
scrutiny
applicant
background
lead
reasonable
policymaker
conclude
plainly
obvious
consequence
decision
hire
applicant
deprivation
third
party
federally
protected
right
official
failure
adequately
scrutinize
applicant
background
constitute
deliberate
indifference
neither
district
appeals
directly
tested
link
burns
actual
background
risk
hired
use
excessive
force
district
instructed
jury
theory
analogous
reserved
canton
required
respondent
prove
sheriff
moore
inadequate
screening
burns
background
likely
result
violations
constitutional
rights
sheriff
reasonably
said
deliberately
indifferent
constitutional
needs
plaintiff
app
emphasis
added
also
instructed
jury
without
elaboration
respondent
required
prove
inadequate
hiring
policy
directly
caused
plaintiff
injury
ibid
discussed
finding
culpability
simply
depend
mere
probability
officer
inadequately
screened
inflict
constitutional
injury
rather
must
depend
finding
officer
highly
likely
inflict
particular
injury
suffered
plaintiff
connection
background
particular
applicant
specific
constitutional
violation
alleged
must
strong
district
instructions
culpability
therefore
jury
finding
municipal
liability
failed
capture
whether
burns
background
made
use
excessive
force
making
arrest
plainly
obvious
consequence
hiring
decision
appeals
affirmance
jury
finding
municipal
liability
depended
view
jury
found
inadequate
screening
deputy
likely
result
violation
citizens
constitutional
rights
emphasis
added
beyond
relying
risk
violations
unspecified
constitutional
rights
appeals
also
posited
sheriff
moore
decision
reflected
indifference
public
welfare
even
assuming
without
deciding
proof
single
instance
inadequate
screening
ever
trigger
municipal
liability
evidence
case
insufficient
support
finding
hiring
burns
sheriff
moore
disregarded
known
obvious
risk
injury
test
link
sheriff
moore
hiring
decision
respondent
injury
must
ask
whether
full
review
burns
record
reveals
sheriff
moore
concluded
burns
use
excessive
force
plainly
obvious
consequence
hiring
decision
point
respondent
showing
inadequate
sure
burns
record
reflected
various
misdemeanor
infractions
respondent
claims
record
demonstrated
strong
propensity
violence
burns
application
excessive
force
highly
likely
primary
charges
respondent
relies
however
arising
fight
college
campus
burns
student
connection
single
incident
burns
charged
assault
battery
resisting
arrest
public
drunkenness
january
pleaded
guilty
charges
burns
also
pleaded
guilty
various
driving
related
offenses
including
nine
moving
violations
charge
driving
suspended
license
addition
burns
previously
pleaded
guilty
actual
physical
control
vehicle
intoxicated
fact
burns
pleaded
guilty
traffic
offenses
misdemeanors
may
well
made
extremely
poor
candidate
reserve
deputy
sheriff
moore
fully
reviewed
burns
record
might
come
precisely
conclusion
butunless
necessarily
reached
decision
burns
use
excessive
force
plainly
obvious
consequence
hiring
decision
sheriff
moore
inadequate
scrutiny
burns
record
constitute
deliberate
indifference
respondent
federally
protected
right
free
use
excessive
force
justice
souter
reading
case
jury
believed
sheriff
moore
fact
read
burns
entire
record
post
plausible
also
irrelevant
sufficient
respondent
show
sheriff
moore
read
burns
record
therefore
hired
burns
knowledge
background
decision
may
reflect
indifference
burns
record
required
deliberate
indifference
plaintiff
constitutional
right
whether
sheriff
moore
failed
examine
burns
record
partially
examined
fully
examined
sheriff
moore
hiring
decision
deliberately
indifferent
unless
light
record
burns
use
excessive
force
plainly
obvious
consequence
hiring
decision
insufficient
evidence
jury
base
finding
sheriff
moore
decision
hire
burns
reflected
conscious
disregard
obvious
risk
use
excessive
force
follow
district
erred
submitting
respondent
inadequate
screening
claim
jury
cases
involving
constitutional
injuries
allegedly
traceable
ill
considered
hiring
decision
pose
greatest
risk
municipality
held
liable
injury
cause
broadest
sense
every
injury
traceable
hiring
decision
fails
adhere
rigorous
requirements
culpability
causation
municipal
liability
collapses
respondeat
superior
liability
recognized
monell
repeatedly
reaffirmed
congress
intendmunicipalities
held
liable
unless
deliberate
action
attributable
municipality
directly
caused
deprivation
federal
rights
failure
apply
stringent
culpability
causation
requirements
raises
serious
federalism
concerns
risks
constitutionalizing
particular
hiring
requirements
elected
impose
cf
canton
harris
bryan
county
liable
sheriff
moore
isolated
decision
hire
burns
without
adequate
screening
respondent
demonstrated
decision
reflected
conscious
disregard
high
risk
burns
use
excessive
force
violation
respondent
federally
protected
right
therefore
vacate
judgment
appeals
remand
case
proceedings
consistent
opinion
ordered
board
county
commissioners
bryan
county
oklahoma
petitioner
jill
brown
et
al
writ
certiorari
appeals
fifth
circuit
april
justice
souter
justice
stevens
justice
breyer
join
dissenting
pembaur
cincinnati
held
municipality
liable
harm
caused
single
act
policymaking
officer
matter
within
authority
covered
policy
previously
identified
central
question
presented
whether
rule
applies
single
act
neither
violates
commands
violation
federal
law
answer
yes
single
act
amounts
deliberate
indifference
substantial
risk
violation
federal
law
result
significant
qualifications
assumes
theory
raises
skeptical
hurdles
reaching
conclusion
practice
virtually
guarantees
disposition
case
holds
matter
law
sheriff
act
thought
reflect
deliberate
indifference
risk
subordinate
violate
constitution
using
excessive
force
respectfully
dissent
much
level
skepticism
reversal
judgment
monell
new
york
city
dept
social
overruled
monroe
pape
insofar
monroe
held
inapplicable
governments
beneath
state
level
municipal
short
monell
supra
time
decided
congress
meant
municipalities
persons
subject
however
also
concluded
municipal
liability
statute
based
traditional
theory
respondeat
superior
said
purposes
act
attributed
municipality
merely
act
municipal
agent
performed
course
exercising
power
delegated
municipality
local
law
reasoned
instead
execution
government
policy
custom
whether
made
lawmakers
whose
edicts
acts
may
fairly
said
represent
official
policy
inflicts
injury
government
entity
responsible
see
pembaur
supra
assigning
municipal
liability
monell
accordingly
distinguish
act
municipal
agent
without
independent
authority
establish
policy
act
one
authorized
set
policy
local
law
likewise
distinguish
acts
lower
level
employees
depending
whether
implement
manifest
policy
set
authority
set
act
municipality
act
authorized
policymaker
employee
following
policymaker
lead
policy
requirement
intended
distinguish
acts
municipality
acts
employees
municipality
thereby
make
clear
municipal
liability
limited
action
municipality
actually
responsible
pembaur
supra
overview
indicates
policy
requirement
may
satisfied
one
way
fact
three
alternatives
discernible
prior
cases
certainly
met
appropriate
officer
entity
promulgates
generally
applicable
statement
policy
subsequent
act
complained
simply
implementation
policy
monell
exemplified
circumstances
city
agencies
issued
rule
requiring
pregnant
employees
take
unpaid
leaves
absence
medical
need
arose
monell
supra
also
held
policy
requirement
satisfied
rule
announced
policy
federal
law
violated
act
policymaker
situation
choice
policy
implementation
one
first
action
suffice
ground
municipal
liability
simply
policymaker
acting
see
pembaur
supra
cf
newport
fact
concerts
implicitly
assuming
policymaker
single
act
sustain
action
owen
independence
matter
policymaker
may
chosen
course
action
tailored
particular
situation
intended
control
decisions
later
situations
pembaur
decision
adopt
particular
course
action
intentionally
made
authorized
policymaker
surely
represents
act
official
government
municipality
equally
responsible
whether
action
taken
taken
repeatedly
ibid
finally
identified
municipal
policy
third
situation
even
policymaker
failed
act
affirmatively
long
need
take
action
control
agents
government
obvious
inadequacy
existing
practice
likely
result
violation
constitutional
rights
policymake
reasonably
said
deliberately
indifferent
need
canton
harris
obvious
example
policymaker
sits
hands
repeated
unlawful
acts
subordinate
officers
failure
evidences
indifference
rights
municipality
inhabitants
policymaker
toleration
subordinates
behavior
establishes
policy
practice
readily
attributable
municipality
one
act
policy
practice
described
policy
choice
may
inferred
even
without
pattern
acts
subordinate
officers
long
need
action
policymaker
obvious
failure
act
rises
deliberate
indifference
deliberate
indifference
thus
treated
elsewhere
law
tantamount
intent
inaction
policymaker
deliberately
indifferent
substantial
risk
harm
equivalent
intentional
action
setting
policy
presupposes
compare
pembaur
supra
plurality
opinion
brennan
deliberate
choice
policymaker
oklahoma
cityv
tuttle
plurality
opinion
rehnquist
generally
implies
course
action
consciously
chosen
canton
supra
municipality
failure
train
employees
evidences
indifference
rights
inhabitants
shortcoming
city
custom
actionable
prior
law
sheriff
moore
failure
screen
old
great
nephew
burns
basis
criminal
record
decision
instead
authorize
burns
act
deputy
sheriff
constitutes
policy
choice
attributable
bryan
county
serious
dispute
sheriff
moore
designated
policymaker
implementing
sheriff
law
enforcement
powers
recruiting
officers
exercise
final
authority
act
municipality
hiring
matters
ante
authorized
policymaker
sheriff
moore
county
purposes
municipal
liability
arising
sheriff
department
exercise
law
enforcement
authority
explain
greater
detail
open
jury
find
sheriff
knew
record
nephew
violent
propensity
hired
deliberate
indifference
risk
use
excessive
force
job
fact
later
sheriff
act
command
require
commission
constitutional
violation
like
order
perform
unlawful
entry
search
pembaur
dispositive
expressly
rejected
contention
unconstitutional
polices
actionable
see
canton
supra
never
suggested
liability
statute
otherwise
limited
policies
facially
violate
federal
law
sheriff
policy
choice
creating
substantial
risk
constitutional
violation
therefore
subject
county
liability
underexisting
precedent
level
theory
least
disagree
assumes
sake
deciding
case
single
facially
neutral
act
deliberate
indifference
policymaker
predicate
municipal
liability
led
unconstitutional
injury
inflicted
subordinate
officers
see
ante
level
practice
however
tenor
opinion
decidedly
different
suggests
trial
insufficiently
appreciated
specificity
risk
indifference
must
deliberate
order
actionable
expresses
deep
skepticism
appreciation
risk
ever
reasonably
attributed
policymaker
performed
single
unsatisfactory
facially
unconstitutional
act
finds
record
insufficient
make
showing
case
serially
mistaken
case
presents
occasion
correct
refine
district
jury
instructions
degree
risk
required
deliberate
indifference
skepticism
converts
newly
demanding
formulation
standard
fault
virtually
categorical
impossibility
showing
case
like
record
case
perfectly
sufficient
support
jury
verdicteven
formulation
high
degree
risk
must
shown
certainly
correct
emphasizing
need
show
mere
negligence
part
policymaker
least
element
deliberateness
requires
subjective
appreciation
risk
unconstitutional
harm
risk
substantial
enough
justify
heightened
responsibility
deliberate
indifference
generally
entails
goes
step
however
requiring
particular
harmful
consequence
plainly
obvious
policymaker
ante
characterization
deliberate
indifference
adapted
dicta
set
forth
canton
see
canton
mentioned
held
municipal
policy
giving
rise
liability
may
inferred
even
policymaker
failed
act
affirmatively
long
need
control
agents
government
obvious
inadequacy
existing
practice
likely
result
violation
constitutional
rights
policymake
reasonably
said
deliberately
indifferent
need
speculated
canton
police
exercising
discretion
often
violate
constitutional
rights
need
training
must
plainly
obvious
city
policymakers
nevertheless
indifferent
need
see
purport
defining
fault
deliberate
indifference
universally
failure
act
relation
plainly
obvious
consequence
harm
addressing
requisite
risk
constitutional
violations
occur
suggest
deliberate
indifference
necessary
establish
municipal
liability
must
says
today
indifference
particular
constitutional
violation
fact
occurred
formulation
deliberate
indifference
exists
risk
subsequent
particular
constitutional
violation
plainly
obvious
consequence
hiring
decision
see
ante
derived
canton
thus
without
doubt
new
standard
see
post
breyer
dissenting
particular
violation
alters
understanding
deliberate
indifference
set
forth
canton
spoke
constitutional
violations
generally
plainly
obvious
consequence
standard
appears
somewhat
higher
example
standard
reckless
fault
criminal
law
requisite
indifference
risk
defined
consciously
disregards
substantial
unjustifiable
risk
material
element
exists
result
involves
gross
deviation
standard
conduct
law
abiding
person
observe
actor
situation
see
american
law
institute
model
penal
code
said
possible
prior
understanding
requisite
degree
fault
standard
may
practice
turn
amount
much
thing
preferred
argument
addressing
point
ruling
however
argument
simple
reason
petitioner
never
asked
deliberate
indifference
defined
occur
particular
constitutional
injury
plainly
obvious
consequence
policymaker
act
petitioner
merely
asked
district
instruct
jury
determine
whether
sheriff
moore
acted
conscious
indifference
see
record
made
objection
district
charge
sheriff
moore
acted
deliberate
indifference
adopting
otherwise
constitutional
hiring
policy
deputy
sheriff
need
closer
scrutiny
stacy
burns
background
obvious
inadequacy
scrutiny
given
likely
result
violations
constitutional
rights
sheriff
moore
reasonably
said
deliberately
indifferent
constitutional
needs
plaintiff
record
appears
today
standard
raise
threshold
municipal
liability
quite
independently
issue
posed
decided
trial
skepticism
modified
standard
fault
ever
met
single
act
case
inadequate
screening
without
patently
unconstitutional
policy
ante
reveals
true
value
assumption
theory
might
municipal
liability
case
dictates
result
review
record
case
us
skepticism
gone
far
plain
enough
facially
unconstitutional
policy
likely
produce
unconstitutional
injury
see
pembaur
monell
obvious
many
facially
neutral
policy
decisions
evince
clear
portents
written
standards
hiring
law
enforcement
personnel
might
silent
significance
prior
criminal
record
without
justifying
much
worry
employing
axe
murderers
unlikely
apply
subjecting
public
attacks
someone
old
assault
conviction
probably
grown
policymaker
need
mandate
injury
indifferent
toits
risk
obvious
particular
hiring
decision
may
raise
high
probability
harm
line
simply
ignores
issue
us
lump
together
one
presumptively
benign
category
every
singular
administrative
act
policymaker
expressly
command
constitute
unconstitutional
behavior
thus
decision
give
law
enforcement
authority
scofflaw
recently
engaged
criminal
violence
presents
different
risk
hiring
someone
drove
overweight
truck
decision
hire
violent
scofflaw
may
entail
harm
others
unquestionably
order
go
rough
suspects
long
way
neutral
risk
creates
rightly
skeptical
predicating
municipal
individual
liability
merely
failure
adopt
crime
free
personnel
policy
particular
decision
hire
guilty
trucker
extend
valid
skepticism
quite
unsound
point
doubting
liability
hiring
violent
scofflaw
says
fears
latter
sort
case
raises
danger
liability
without
fault
ante
means
fault
generally
distinct
blame
imputed
classic
respondeat
superior
doctrine
need
recall
whether
particular
violent
scofflaw
violent
enough
scoffing
enough
implicate
deliberate
indifference
depend
applying
highly
demanding
standard
announces
plainly
obvious
consequence
particular
injury
high
threshold
deliberate
indifference
ensure
municipalities
held
liable
considered
acts
substantial
risks
standard
distinguish
single
act
cases
mild
portent
injury
single
act
cases
plainly
obvious
portent
cases
harm
latest
series
injuries
known
followed
policymaker
action
fenced
slippery
slope
second
stated
reason
skeptical
majority
municipal
liability
monell
rest
respondeat
superior
ante
must
carefully
test
link
policymaker
inadequate
decision
particular
injury
alleged
ante
simply
say
tortious
act
must
proximately
caused
policymaker
policy
requirement
restriction
bars
straightforward
respondeat
superior
liability
need
test
link
merely
need
apply
law
defines
cognizable
link
restriction
imputed
fault
saves
municipalities
liability
need
categorical
immunization
single
act
cases
short
skepticism
excessive
ignoring
fact
acts
policymaker
present
substantial
risks
unconstitutional
harm
even
though
acts
unconstitutional
per
se
purported
justifications
extreme
skepticism
washed
standards
employed
limit
liability
demonstrating
extreme
degree
inhospitality
single
act
municipal
liability
case
point
even
plainly
obvious
consequence
rule
evidence
support
verdict
dispute
incident
question
sheriff
ordered
copy
nephew
criminal
record
sheriff
spoke
euphemistically
witness
stand
driving
record
scope
requested
documentation
included
crimes
beyond
motor
vehicle
violations
sheriff
never
denied
knew
admitted
read
record
said
knew
long
said
sure
noticed
charges
driving
suspended
license
said
taken
trouble
make
independent
search
outstanding
warrant
burns
arrest
put
however
somehow
failed
notice
charges
assault
battery
list
offenses
long
point
either
contempt
law
incapacity
obey
although
jury
might
accepted
sheriff
disclaimer
one
read
transcript
assume
jurors
gave
credit
testimony
open
find
sheriff
simply
lying
oath
limited
perusal
appeals
noted
possibility
see
likely
reading
evidence
law
enforcement
officers
characteristically
devoid
curiosity
lose
interest
part
way
criminal
record
subject
personal
investigation
likely
jurors
disbelieve
sheriff
concluded
read
whole
record
certainly
eliminated
possibility
sheriff
decision
employ
relative
act
mere
negligence
poor
judgment
even
claim
example
thought
assault
must
beenjust
youthful
peccadillo
magnified
proportion
criminal
charge
evaluated
assault
merely
eccentric
behavior
young
man
sound
character
convinced
wild
youth
given
way
discretion
evidence
reasonable
mistaken
judgment
jury
readily
found
sheriff
knew
nephew
proven
propensities
thought
thrust
evidence
damaging
lie
protect
reputation
county
treasury
simply
chose
put
family
member
payroll
third
relative
fact
disregarding
risk
public
trial
petitioner
expert
witness
stated
cross
examination
burns
rap
sheet
listed
repeated
traffic
violations
including
driving
intoxicated
driving
suspended
license
resisting
arrest
one
charge
assault
battery
witness
testified
burns
pleaded
guilty
assault
battery
charges
months
hired
sheriff
moore
respondent
expertwitness
testified
burns
arrest
record
showed
blatant
disregard
law
problems
may
show
abusing
public
using
excessive
force
record
petitioner
expert
agreed
burns
criminal
history
caused
concern
asked
hired
burns
replied
doubtful
record
evidence
jury
found
string
arrests
convictions
revealed
burns
propensity
violence
disregard
law
see
subsequent
resort
excessive
force
plainly
obvious
consequence
hiring
law
enforcement
officer
authorized
employ
force
performing
duties
county
escapes
liability
untoward
application
enhanced
fault
standard
record
inculpatory
evidence
showing
contempt
constitutional
obligations
blatant
nepotism
apparently
occasioned
novelty
escape
shows
something
unsuspected
least
today
despite
arguments
monell
policy
requirement
erroneous
reading
see
oklahoma
city
tuttle
stevens
dissenting
previously
thought
sufficient
reason
unsettle
precedent
monell
turns
however
monell
hardly
settled
justice
breyer
powerful
call
reexamine
municipal
liability
afresh
finds
support
readiness
rethink
matter
respectfully
dissent
board
county
commissioners
bryan
county
oklahoma
petitioner
jill
brown
et
al
writ
certiorari
appeals
fifth
circuit
april
justice
breyer
justice
stevens
justice
ginsburg
join
dissenting
monell
new
york
city
dept
social
said
municipalities
held
liable
constitutional
torts
respondeat
superior
theory
held
liable
execution
municipality
policy
custom
inflicts
injury
statement
produced
highly
complex
body
interpretive
law
today
decision
exemplifies
law
complexity
distinguishes
among
municipal
action
violates
federal
law
ante
action
intentionally
deprive
plaintiff
federally
protected
right
one
caused
employee
ante
elaborates
requirement
consequence
likely
occur
policymaker
reasonably
said
deliberately
indifferent
respect
canton
harris
emphasis
added
admonition
unconstitutional
consequence
must
plainly
obvious
ante
majority
fears
contrary
view
prior
precedent
undermine
monell
basic
distinction
concern
however
rather
leading
us
tospin
ever
finer
distinctions
try
apply
monell
basic
distinction
liability
rests
upon
policy
liability
vicarious
suggests
reexamine
legal
soundness
basic
distinction
believe
legal
prerequisites
reexamination
interpretation
important
statute
present
soundness
original
principle
doubtful
original
principle
generated
body
interpretive
law
complex
law
become
difficult
apply
factual
legal
changes
divorced
law
distinction
apparent
original
purposes
may
handful
individuals
groups
significantly
relied
upon
perpetuation
original
distinction
later
law
made
original
distinction
simply
wrong
obsolete
potential
source
confusion
compare
continental
gte
sylvania
reexamining
sherman
act
interpretation
set
forth
arnold
schwinn
hubbard
reexamining
interpretation
set
forth
bramblett
monell
supra
reexamining
interpretation
set
forth
monroe
pape
see
also
gaudin
slip
first
consider
monell
original
reasoning
monell
vicarious
liability
principle
rested
upon
historical
analysis
upon
literal
language
language
imposes
liability
upon
upon
person
justice
stevens
clearly
explained
neither
rationales
sound
oklahoma
city
tuttle
stevens
dissenting
pembaur
cincinnati
stevens
concurring
part
andconcurring
judgment
essentially
history
monell
relied
consists
almost
exclusively
fact
congress
enacted
rejected
amendment
called
sherman
amendment
made
municipalities
vicariously
liable
marauding
acts
private
citizens
monell
supra
cf
jett
dallas
independent
school
plurality
opinion
fact
justice
stevens
others
pointed
argue
vicarious
liability
act
municipal
employees
particularly
since
municipalities
time
vicariously
liable
many
acts
employees
see
tuttle
supra
stevens
dissenting
citing
cases
pembaur
supra
stevens
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
see
also
kramer
sykes
municipal
liability
legal
economic
analysis
sup
rev
mead
municipal
liability
monell
sketch
becomes
distorted
picture
rev
see
welch
hofmeister
praprotnik
municipal
policy
policymakers
constriction
municipal
liability
adopting
monell
reading
legislative
history
without
supporting
history
difficult
find
words
person
inconsistent
respondeat
superior
liability
bodies
politic
corporate
municipalities
person
see
act
ch
stat
repealed
monell
supra
section
requires
person
either
subjec
caus
different
person
subjected
deprivation
right
purely
linguistic
matter
municipality
act
employees
might
said
subject
ed
person
cause
person
subjected
loss
rights
amunicipality
employee
acts
within
scope
employment
see
restatement
second
agency
landes
posner
economic
structure
tort
law
federal
courts
occasion
interpreted
word
person
equivalent
statutes
authorizing
forms
vicarious
liability
see
american
telephone
telegraph
winback
conserve
program
cert
denied
lanham
act
american
soc
mechanical
engineers
hydrolevel
sherman
act
trucking
criminal
statute
see
also
tuttle
supra
stevens
dissenting
second
monell
basic
effort
distinguish
vicarious
liability
liability
derived
policy
custom
produced
body
law
neither
readily
understandable
easy
apply
today
case
provides
good
example
district
case
told
jury
must
find
sheriff
moore
screening
likely
result
violations
constitutional
rights
reasonably
said
deliberately
indifferent
constitutional
needs
plaintiff
inadequate
hiring
policy
directly
caused
plaintiff
injury
app
emphasis
added
instruction
comes
close
repeating
language
canton
harris
canton
said
city
failure
train
officers
use
deadly
force
light
duties
assigned
specific
officers
employees
need
different
training
obvious
inadequacy
likely
result
violation
constitutional
rights
policymakers
city
reasonably
said
deliberately
indifferent
need
emphasis
added
consider
distinctions
make
sought
distinguish
liability
based
upon
policymaking
liability
vicarious
proved
necessary
example
distinguish
exercise
policymaking
authority
exercise
delegated
discretionary
policy
implementing
authority
see
louis
praprotnik
plurality
opinion
compare
tuttle
plurality
opinion
canton
supra
without
distinction
municipal
liability
might
collaps
respondeat
superior
ante
law
treat
similarly
hold
municipalities
responsible
police
officer
decision
much
force
use
making
particular
arrest
police
chief
decision
much
force
use
making
particular
kind
arrest
distinction
clear
one
requires
federal
courts
explore
state
andmunicipal
law
distributes
different
state
powers
among
different
local
officials
local
entities
praprotnik
supra
plurality
opinion
jett
law
highly
specialized
may
may
say
policymaking
authority
lies
prove
particularly
difficult
apply
light
determination
decision
policymaking
even
though
applies
single
instance
pembaur
see
also
praprotnik
supra
brennan
concurring
judgment
schnapper
monell
update
clarity
conflict
complications
practising
law
institute
litigation
administrative
practice
series
vol
schuck
municipal
liability
section
lessons
tort
law
organization
theory
geo
surprising
results
sometimes
proved
inconsistent
compare
ante
sheriff
final
policymaker
hiring
matters
greensboro
professional
fire
fighters
local
greensboro
fire
chief
policymaker
respect
hiring
firing
harris
pagedale
cert
denied
municipality
deliberately
indifferent
charges
sexual
assault
wilson
chicago
cert
denied
municipal
policymaker
deliberately
indifferent
charges
abuse
pretrial
detainees
see
also
auriemma
rice
describing
confusion
courts
location
policymaking
authority
pose
conceptually
difficult
problem
lower
courts
must
also
ask
decide
whether
failure
make
policy
deliberately
indifferent
rather
grossly
negligent
canton
supra
mustdecide
example
whether
matters
failure
occurred
officer
training
rather
officer
hiring
process
ante
given
basic
monell
principle
distinctions
may
necessary
without
easily
avoid
municipal
liability
collaps
es
respondeat
superior
ante
basic
legal
principle
requires
many
distinctions
maintain
legal
life
may
deserve
longevity
see
mead
describing
confusion
uncertainty
lower
courts
caused
monell
choice
policy
custom
causation
requirement
schuck
supra
noting
extraordinary
unpredictability
policy
test
finally
relevant
legal
factual
circumstances
may
changed
way
affects
likely
reliance
upon
monell
liability
limitation
legal
complexity
described
makes
difficult
municipalities
predict
held
liable
based
upon
policy
custom
moreover
potential
liability
sense
greater
individuals
assert
qualified
immunity
defenses
individuals
may
raise
owen
independence
many
statutes
appear
effect
mimic
respondeat
superior
authorizing
indemnification
employees
found
liable
actions
within
scope
employment
see
stat
idaho
code
comp
ch
stat
ann
stat
mont
code
ann
rev
stat
rev
stat
ann
cent
code
supp
okla
tit
supp
cons
stat
codified
laws
utah
code
ann
code
stat
statutes
valuable
government
employees
well
civil
rights
victims
provide
payments
government
similar
take
place
absence
monell
limitations
extent
municipal
reliance
upon
continuation
monell
policy
limitation
loses
much
significance
statement
reliance
course
must
tentative
heard
argument
matter
know
pattern
indemnification
often
extent
indemnify
employees
employees
indemnify
also
realize
may
reasons
constitutional
otherwise
discussed
argue
strongly
reaffirmation
monell
holding
see
gerhardt
monell
legacy
balancing
federalism
concerns
municipal
accountability
section
cal
rev
discussing
federalism
nahmod
constitutional
accountability
section
litigation
iowa
rev
describing
monell
proper
approach
local
government
accountability
section
describing
fault
based
interpretation
welch
hofmeister
discussing
disadvantages
expansive
view
municipal
liability
including
lack
insurance
coverage
nonetheless
reasons
set
forth
believe
case
reexamination
strong
one
today
decision
underscores
need
consequently
ask
argument
focus
upon
continued
viability
monell
distinction
vicarious
municipal
liability
municipal
liability
based
upon
policy
custom
footnotes
suggesting
decision
complicates
municipal
liability
jurisprudence
altering
understanding
culpability
justice
souter
justice
breyer
misunderstand
approach
post
post
suggest
plaintiff
inadequate
screening
case
must
show
higher
degree
culpability
deliberate
indifference
required
canton
harris
need
discussed
respondent
made
showing
deliberate
indifference
see
infra
furthermore
assessing
risks
decision
hire
particular
individual
draw
distinction
obvious
likely
occur
plainly
obvious
difficulty
lower
courts
approach
fails
connect
background
particular
officer
hired
case
particular
constitutional
violation
respondent
suffered
supra
ensuring
lower
courts
link
background
officer
constitutional
violation
alleged
complicate
municipal
liability
jurisprudence
degrees
obviousness
seeks
ensure
plaintiff
inadequate
screening
case
establishes
policymaker
deliberate
indifference
conscious
disregard
known
obvious
consequences
actions
justice
souter
implies
burns
record
reflected
assault
battery
charges
arising
one
incident
post
never
serious
dispute
single
misdemeanor
assault
battery
conviction
arose
single
campus
fight
petitioner
expert
testify
record
reflected
assault
charge
without
disposition
see
record
although
justice
souter
appears
suggest
otherwise
post
fact
respondent
expert
witness
testified
burns
record
reflected
single
assault
conviction
record
see
also
petitioner
repeatedly
claimed
see
suggestion
rehearing
en
banc
burns
one
misdemeanor
assault
conviction
stemming
campus
fight
pet
rehearing
substituted
opinion
record
brief
support
defendants
motion
judgment
notwithstanding
verdict
pet
cert
burns
pled
guilty
assault
battery
result
one
campus
fight
respondent
contested
characterization
see
record
brief
support
plaintiff
response
defendants
motion
judgment
notwithstanding
jury
verdict
brief
appellant
brown
et
al
pp
brief
opposition
indeed
since
characterization
reflected
county
petition
certiorari
rule
respondent
obligation
brief
opposition
correct
perceived
misstatement
petition
involvement
single
fraternity
fracas
demonstrate
proclivity
violence
person
post
see
american
law
institute
model
penal
code
person
acts
recklessly
respect
material
element
offense
consciously
disregards
substantial
unjustifiable
risk
material
element
exists
result
conduct
case
credit
first
nat
bank
madison
consciously
ignore
deliberately
close
one
eyes
manifest
danger
recklessness
mental
state
law
commonly
substitutes
intent
actual
cf
estelle
gamble
deliberate
indifference
prisoner
serious
medical
needs
violates
eighth
amendment
giovannetti
deliberate
effort
avoid
guilty
knowledge
guilty
knowledge
law
requires
jewell
cert
denied
eliberate
ignorance
positive
knowledge
equally
culpable
given
sheriff
position
law
enforcement
policymaker
simply
point
suggest
significance
either
fact
sheriff
moore
failure
screen
may
deviation
ordinary
hiring
practices
pattern
injuries
resulting
past
practices
absent
see
ante
pembaur
made
clear
single
act
designated
policymaker
sufficient
establish
municipal
policy
see
pembaur
cincinnati
canton
explained
recognizes
see
ante
evidence
single
violation
federal
rights
trigger
municipal
liability
see
canton
harris
see
infra
part
ii
embellishment
deliberate
indifference
standard
case
help
resolving
case
never
suggestion
deputy
burns
criminal
background
including
charges
assault
battery
indicated
commit
constitutional
violation
different
one
fact
committed
sheriff
moore
testified
knew
burns
charged
driving
intoxicated
following
exchange
respondent
counsel
took
place
obtain
information
remember
got
make
inquiry
proper
authorities
oklahoma
get
copy
burns
rap
sheet
run
driving
record
yes
right
get
rap
sheet
immediately
ca
take
long
right
see
burns
arrested
assault
battery
see
one
never
noticed
notice
arrested
charged
driving
license
suspended
several
occasions
sure
right
notice
arrested
convicted
possession
false
identification
never
noticed
notice
arrested
public
drunk
long
record
notice
arrested
resisting
arrest
make
inquiries
got
information
determine
exactly
disposition
charges
make
attempt
find
status
criminal
record
time
far
criminal
record
believe
criminal
record
driving
misdemeanors
well
make
attempts
determine
whether
burns
probation
time
placed
know
probation
make
effort
find
idea
probation
well
saw
rap
sheet
charged
driving
influence
heard
remember
whether
seen
rap
sheet
heard
know
remember
whether
seen
rap
sheet
heard
right
well
whichever
way
came
attention
check
find
proper
authorities
disposition
charge
really
know
ca
say
check
see
burns
arrest
warrant
run
national
crime
information
center
show
warrant
record
burns
son
sheriff
moore
nephew
burns
grandfather
involved
sheriff
department
years
see
points
burns
one
conviction
assault
battery
respondent
never
claimed
otherwise
expert
witness
testified
see
ante
entirely
correct
issue
might
learned
thoroughly
investigating
burns
behavior
issue
sufficiency
evidence
support
jury
finding
sheriff
acted
deliberate
indifference
hired
burns
specifically
assuming
jury
found
sheriff
looked
burns
criminal
record
assumption
acknowledges
plausible
see
ante
evidence
show
sheriff
learned
examination
criminal
record
introduced
evidence
written
form
relevant
part
read
jury
petitioner
expert
witness
ken
barnes
according
barnes
testimony
criminal
record
listof
numerous
charges
included
four
references
assault
battery
two
witness
said
duplicative
though
conceded
necessarily
see
record
upshot
jury
found
sheriff
looked
written
record
found
read
four
separate
references
assault
battery
charges
say
four
assaults
necessarily
occurred
record
refers
four
times
charges
listing
one
conviction
assault
battery
barnes
also
testified
record
contain
disposition
charges
listed
sheriff
reviewing
record
investigated
determine
disposition
charges
see
judgment
evidence
sufficient
majority
test
shown
one
complaint
conviction
assault
battery
given
mixture
charges
resisting
officer
public
drunkenness
multiple
traffic
offenses
four
month
period
ending
sixteen
months
burns
hired
inference
drawn
repeatedly
lawless
young
man
shown
proclivity
violence
person
turns
evidentiary
record
ostensibly
damaging