Whether law enforcement officers' decision to transport an arrestee they believed had ingested drugs to a nearby prison with medical staff constituted deliberate indifference

QUESTION PRESENTED In this extraordinary case, a sharply divided Third Circuit panel denied petitioner and other law enforcement officers qualified immunity over a forceful dissent by Judge Phipps. Plaintiffs below (Respondents here) allege that officers believed decedent Terelle Thomas ingested crack cocaine. Thomas showed no signs of distress and repeatedly assured officers that he was okay. Officers transported him to the county booking center six minutes away, where they informed booking center medical staff of their belief that Thomas had eaten crack cocaine. The medical staff evaluated Thomas and cleared him to stay at the booking center. He later collapsed in his cell and was transported to a hospital where he died three days later. His cause of death was fentanyl] and cocaine toxicity. The Third Circuit majority held that transporting Thomas to the booking center with medical staff on site, rather than directly to the hospital, constituted deliberate indifference and that the officers’ misconduct was so extreme and so obvious that they could not claim qualified immunity, despite the absence of any on-point precedent. In dissent, Judge Phipps explained that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity because this case “falls well short” of the obviousness exception. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the Third Circuit erred in holding that law enforcement officers’ decision to transport an arrestee they believed had ingested drugs, but did not believe required emergency medical care, to a nearby prison with medical staff rather than directly to a hospital constituted deliberate indifference. 2. Whether the Third Circuit erred—warranting summary reversal—in refusing qualified immunity in the absence of any precedent finding a constitutional violation based on similar facts. (i)