Defining Probable Cause, Reasonable Force, and Deliberate Indifference in Public Intoxication Arrests: Burke v. City of Oklahoma City

Introduction

Burke v. City of Oklahoma City is a 2025 decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit addressing a § 1983 suit brought by Michael S. Burke’s estate. Burke had been arrested for public intoxication at an Oklahoma City Thunder basketball game, injured while handcuffed and waiting for transport, and later diagnosed with multiple rib fractures. He sued two officers (Joshua Norton and Jason Samuel) and the City for unlawful arrest (Fourth Amendment), excessive force (Fourth Amendment), deliberate indifference to medical needs (Fourteenth/Eighth Amendment), denial of access to the courts, and state‐law negligence. The district court granted summary judgment on all federal claims and remanded the negligence claims; the Tenth Circuit affirmed.

Summary of the Judgment

1. Unlawful Arrest: The court held the officers had probable cause to arrest Burke for public intoxication under Oklahoma law based on slurred speech, unsteadiness, bloodshot eyes and odor of alcohol.
2. Excessive Force: Burke alleged an officer pushed him off a waist‐high wall, causing his fall. The court found the push was minimal, objectively reasonable, and protected by qualified immunity.
3. Deliberate Indifference: The court concluded Burke failed to show Officer Norton had actual knowledge of a serious medical risk, as Burke’s post‐fall symptoms (moaning and generalized pain) were not “obvious” signs of internal injury.
4. Access to Courts: Burke claimed a cover‐up prevented him from identifying the second officer. The court held he lacked any underlying viable claim and thus no cognizable injury to his court‐access right.
5. Municipal Liability: Because no constitutional violation by the officers was established, the City could not be held liable under § 1983.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

• Graham v. Connor (490 U.S. 386, 1989): Established the Fourth Amendment “objective reasonableness” test for excessive force, balancing the severity of the crime, threat posed, and resistance.
• Estate of Booker v. Gomez (745 F.3d 405, 10th Cir. 2014): Summaries on drawing inferences for summary judgment.
• Rife v. Oklahoma Dep’t of Public Safety (854 F.3d 637, 10th Cir. 2017): Held that slurred speech, dizziness, and faulty memory can establish probable cause for public intoxication and deliberative indifference analysis.
• Findlay v. City of Tulsa (561 P.2d 980, Okla. 1977) and Staub v. State (526 P.2d 1155, Okla. Crim. App. 1974): Oklahoma cases confirming that visible signs of intoxication suffice for public intoxication arrests without chemical tests.
• Sealock v. Colorado (218 F.3d 1205, 10th Cir. 2000): Eighth Amendment deliberative indifference where an officer ignored severe chest pain, vomiting, and pale appearance.
• Quintana v. Santa Fe County Bd. of Comm’rs (973 F.3d 1022, 10th Cir. 2020): Clarified that only “obvious” symptoms implying internal injury support an inference of actual knowledge of serious risk.
• Harbury v. Deutch (536 U.S. 403, 2002): Described the right of access to courts and the requirement of an underlying claim to show an injury.

Legal Reasoning

1. Probable Cause for Public Intoxication: The Fourth Amendment permits warrantless arrests when officers have probable cause—“facts and circumstances . . . sufficient to warrant a prudent person’s belief.” Oklahoma’s public intoxication statute requires only that a person be intoxicated in a public place. The court held that slurred speech, unsteadiness, bloodshot eyes, and odor of alcohol, observed by multiple witnesses at a public sporting event, satisfied probable cause without chemical tests or field-sobriety tests.

2. Qualified Immunity & Excessive Force: Under Graham, minimal force (a single push to help a handcuffed detainee off a wall) is objectively reasonable. Burke’s injury stemmed from an accidental loss of balance; no evidence showed malice or gratuitous force. Accordingly, the officer was entitled to qualified immunity.

3. Deliberate Indifference Standard: To overcome qualified immunity under the Eighth/Fourteenth Amendment, Burke needed to show a “serious medical need” and that the officer “knew of and disregarded” an “excessive risk to inmate health.” His symptoms—moaning and generalized pain after a fall—did not present obvious signs of internal injury (e.g., bleeding, deformity, blood‐tinged vomit). Thus, no triable issue of actual knowledge.

4. Right of Access to Courts: Burke’s claim that the officers’ failure to document prevented him from suing a second, unnamed officer failed because he identified no surviving meritorious claim and suffered no “actual injury” to his right to access the courts.

5. Municipal Liability: Under Monell principles, a municipality cannot be liable absent an underlying constitutional violation by its officials. Because no federal rights were violated, the City was entitled to summary judgment.

Impact

Burke v. City of Oklahoma City clarifies key aspects of § 1983 litigation in the Tenth Circuit:

• Probable Cause: Confirms that common-sense observations of intoxication satisfy probable cause for public intoxication arrests in Oklahoma, even absent chemical or field sobriety tests.
• Use of Force: Reinforces that minimal force used to assist or redirect a handcuffed individual does not amount to excessive force.
• Deliberate Indifference: Emphasizes the high threshold for inferring an officer’s subjective knowledge—requiring “obvious” signs of serious harm.
• Access to Courts: Stresses the necessity of a viable underlying claim to sustain any denial-of-access action.
• Municipal Liability: Reiterates that § 1983 claims against cities require a predicate constitutional violation by a public actor.

Lower courts and practitioners will rely on Burke to assess qualified immunity motions in contexts involving public-intoxication arrests, minimal assistance force, and post-arrest medical complaints.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Probable Cause vs. Reasonable Suspicion: Probable cause is a stronger standard than reasonable suspicion and means that a “reasonable person” believes a crime has been committed. For public intoxication, no chemical test is needed if visible signs are present.
• Objective Reasonableness: Under the Fourth Amendment, courts ask whether an officer’s actions were reasonable “from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene,” not with 20/20 hindsight.
• Qualified Immunity: Protects officers unless they violate “clearly established” constitutional law. If plaintiffs cannot point to binding precedent showing their rights were “beyond debate,” immunity applies.
• Deliberate Indifference: A prison-rights doctrine requiring proof that an official knew of and ignored an obvious risk to an inmate’s health or safety.
• Monell Liability: Cities and municipalities can be sued under § 1983 only if an official policy or custom caused a constitutional violation.

Conclusion

Burke v. City of Oklahoma City establishes that (1) simple, observable signs of intoxication suffice for probable cause in public places under Oklahoma law; (2) a one-time push to assist a handcuffed detainee is not excessive force; (3) generalized complaints of pain after a fall do not automatically trigger a finding of deliberate indifference; (4) access-to-courts claims require a meritorious underlying cause of action; and (5) municipal liability under § 1983 cannot stand without an underlying constitutional breach. This decision will guide law enforcement, trial courts, and attorneys in evaluating the reasonableness of arrests, force, and medical responses in public intoxication contexts.