11th Circuit skeptical of policy preventing police from aiding bleeding suspect

(CN) — Joseph Lee Pettaway bled out in full view of at least seven police officers in Montgomery, Alabama, minutes after his femoral artery was severed by a bite to the groin from the department’s K-9 dog.

Under the department’s policy, officers are forbidden from personally providing first aid to people they injure through the use of force. Instead, they are directed to call for medics.

Pettaway, approached by officers as a burglary suspect, was hiding under a bed when the police dog bit him. Although body camera footage and officer testimony showed they quickly recognized he was in critical condition, paramedics did not arrive until almost 10 minutes after officers called for help. Pettaway was transported to the hospital, where he died.

In the subsequent wrongful death lawsuit filed by Pettaway’s estate, the policy survived a constitutional challenge after the city argued it protects untrained officers from causing further injury.

On Wednesday, family attorney Griffin Sikes Jr. urged an 11th Circuit panel to overturn that ruling and allow a jury to decide the case.

“Everything you need to know about what was required to prevent [Pettaway’s] death was to apply steady pressure to the wound,” Sikes told the three-judge panel. “That requires no special training.”

U.S. Circuit Judge Robin Rosenbaum repeatedly pressed the city on its knowledge of life-threatening bleeding risks. The Barack Obama appointee noted police leadership and officers had testified they understood the dangers of unchecked blood loss.

Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Charles R. Wilson focused on the policy’s practical effect.

“They can provide aid for some instances, but not if the aid requires the expertise of someone trained like a medic,” the Bill Clinton appointee observed. Sikes pointed out that while some officers had CPR training, none were trained to treat severe bleeding, and all testified they felt “prohibited” by the directive against intervening.

City attorney Allison A. Ingram defended the policy narrowly, arguing Montgomery officers satisfied their constitutional duty by promptly calling for emergency medical services.

In response, Rosenbaum posed a hypothetical about whether the same policy would have prevented an officer from applying pressure to save a fellow officer suffering the same injury. Ingram suggested the policy likely would not apply to fellow officers. Rosenbaum challenged the distinction: “Why isn’t that exactly the same problem when it comes to a person who’s not an officer?”

“The problem is that the policy was adopted knowing … that people would bleed out … [and] that if nothing was done before the EMTs got there, that the person would die,” Rosenbaum said. “It seems like it prohibits your officers from complying with their constitutional duty.”

Ingram raised public policy concerns such as scene security, blood-borne pathogens and officer distraction. Rosenbaum dismissed those arguments as “a completely different issue,” noting seven officers were present simply “standing around holding flashlights.”

“This case is not about whether the officers were affirmatively required to render aid … This case is about whether the city can prohibit the officers from providing aid if they know how to do so and want to do so,” Rosenbaum said.

In rebuttal, Sikes underscored that officers clearly knew Pettaway was bleeding out — blood was pooling beneath him on the sidewalk — and that the policy was the only reason they did nothing.

“Most police officers have some sort of motto that ‘we are here to serve and protect,’” Sikes said. “Well ‘protect’ includes … persons that we injure while we are enforcing the law.”

The panel, which also included Joe Biden-appointed U.S. Circuit Judge Embry J. Kidd, took the case under submission. A decision is pending.

Follow @gabetynes