Denver CARES is a detoxification facility managed and staffed by Colorado state employees. The facility often detains people involuntarily under Colorado’s “emergency commitment statute.” That statute authorizes the detention of people who are both intoxicated and a danger to themselves or others. Brian Garrett is one such person who was involuntarily detained overnight at Denver CARES after being arrested on his own property. After his release, Garrett sued Denver CARES. He argues that his detention was unlawful because he was not dangerous at any point, and because he was detained past the time when he became completely sober.

In its defense, Denver CARES now denies that it had a responsibility to independently assess whether Garrett’s detention was legally justified. Even though Denver CARES conducted its own evaluation of Garrett when he was admitted, Denver CARES now argues that it simply relied on the arresting police officers’ assessments of whether Garrett was drunk and dangerous under a doctrine known as “collective knowledge,” which in some circumstances allows government actors to rely on the advice of others.

A federal district court dismissed Garrett’s claims, and he appealed to the Tenth Circuit. Cato has now filed an amicus brief supporting Garrett. Our brief makes three key points.

First, institutions like Denver CARES have an independent duty to assess whether probable cause exists to authorize emergency commitments. The “collective knowledge doctrine” may be necessary when police officers need to make split-second decisions and must rely on information from each other. But it has no justification when an institution has the time and resources necessary to continually evaluate whether a person is drunk and dangerous.

Second, even short-term seizures are unconstitutional absent probable cause. It is undisputed that Denver Cares detained Garrett more than 30 minutes past the time when he was recorded as sober. Since intoxication is a necessary condition for an involuntary detention under the statute, Garrett’s continued detention past his sober time was objectively unreasonable. And the Tenth Circuit has previously made clear that a seizure is unconstitutional if it is unreasonable, regardless of whether the seizure is brief.

Third and finally, courts should heavily scrutinize profit-motivated “drunk tanks” like Denver CARES when they allegedly violate a citizen’s constitutional rights. Denver CARES charges detainees approximately $325 per day for their detention. Unlike state-funded prisons, Denver CARES is incentivized to admit every intoxicated person into its facilities, regardless of whether they meet the constitutional requirements for an emergency commitment. This practice raises serious Fourth Amendment concerns.

The Tenth Circuit should reverse the district court’s holding and allow Garrett to proceed with his claims against Denver CARES.