Edna Lum v. City of Grants Pass

MEMORANDUM

1. Edna Lum has not established a genuine issue of material fact either that Thomas Lum was “seized” under the Fourth Amendment or that Corporal Ridenour’s initial entry into Lum’s motel room was an illegal search, so her claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 fails. “[A] person has been ‘seized’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only if, in view of all the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave.” United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554 , 100 S.Ct. 1870 , 64 L.Ed.2d 497 (1980). Lum was non-responsive and thrashing uncontrollably, and his eyes were rolling in the back of his head, so he certainly gave no indication that he wanted to leave but felt prevented from doing so. And a reasonable person in Lum’s circumstances would want not to leave but, instead, to receive the medical treatment required by the emergency and provided with Riden-our’s assistance. “Violation of the Fourth Amendment requires an intentional acquisition of physical control,” Brower v. Cnty. of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593, 596 , 109 S.Ct. 1378 , 103 L.Ed.2d 628 (1989), and Ridenour’s actions in securing the motel room and helping…