Whether a law enforcement officer's decision to transport a potentially drug-intoxicated arrestee to a jail medical facility instead of a hospital constitutes deliberate indifference to serious medical needs under the Fourteenth Amendment

No question identified. : 2. Absent an extension, a petition for a writ of certiorari would be due on April 8, 2024. This application is being filed more than 10 days in advance of that date, and no prior application has been made in this case. 3. This case seeks review of an extraordinary and unprecedented qualified immunity denial by a divided Third Circuit panel over a powerful dissent by Judge Phipps. Applicant Officer Kinsinger, along with other officers, believed decedent Terelle Thomas had ingested crack cocaine, but Mr. Thomas denied that he had ingested cocaine, told officers he felt okay, and showed no obvious signs of overdose or poisoning. The officers knew that medical personnel at the county jail, which was only minutes away, would be able to further evaluate his condition. Yet, the two-judge Third Circuit majority held that this conduct, taking decedent to the county jail minutes away where he was evaluated by medical staff, rather than straight to a hospital, not only constituted deliberate indifference to decedent’s serious medical needs,’ but that it was so obvious that Applicant could not raise the defense of qualified immunity even though the panel majority conceded there is no “closely analogous precedent” that would have put the officers on notice. 4. This case raises an exceptionally important question warranting this Court’s review. As every judge below recognized, neither this Court nor a robust consensus of the Courts of Appeals has recognized the right to medical care at a hospital after the ingestion of drugs where the arrestee denies ingesting the drugs, declines medical care, and shows 1 As a basic legal standard, this Court has held that the Eighth Amendment protects a prisoner from deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103-04 (1976). The Fourteenth Amendment affords pretrial detainees the same protections as those available to inmates under the Eighth Amendment. City of Revere v. Mass. Gen. Hospital, 463 U.S. 239, 244 (1983). no obvious signs of overdose or poisoning. And contrary to the panel majority, it is not remotely “obvious” that officers’ sincere efforts to get such an arrestee prompt medical attention and evaluation—just at the county jail rather than at a hospital—constitute deliberate indifference to that arrestee’s serious medical needs. 5. Applicant Daniel Kinsinger is a probation officer in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. In December 2019, he was on patrol with a Harrisburg police officer when he encountered Terelle Thomas. Mr. Thomas spoke to the officers as if there was something in his mouth and spat out white liquid. Applicant’s patrol partner told Applicant that she believed Mr. Thomas may have ingested crack cocaine, but Mr. Thomas showed no signs of distress, told officers he was feeling okay, and repeatedly denied having ingested any drugs. Mr. Thomas was arrested for possession of crack cocaine and other drug-related offenses. Applicant’s interaction with Mr. Thomas ended when another officer transported Mr. Thomas to the Dauphin County Prison, which had a medical unit operated by PrimeCare Medical, Inc. During transport, Mr. Thomas again denied ingesting drugs, showed no clear signs of distress, and verbally assured the officer he did not require attention. 6. Upon arrival at Dauphin County Prison, the officer informed booking center staff, including medical personnel, that Mr. Thomas may have ingested crack cocaine. Booking center staff examined Mr. Thomas and placed him in a holding cell. More than an hour after arrival at the booking center, Mr. Thomas collapsed in his cell. He was transported to a nearby hospital, where he died three days later. An autopsy revealed the cause of death as cocaine and fentanyl toxicity. 7. In July 2020, Mr. Thomas’s estate commenced a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the City of Harrisburg, PrimeCare Medical, Inc., and the individual officers, including Applicant. As relevant here, Mr. Thoma