Full opinion text
ORDER SPIEGEL, Senior District Judge. On November 6, 2001, Roger Owensby, Jr.’s Estate (the “Estate”) filed a Complaint against the City of Cincinnati (“Cincinnati” or the “City”), the City of Golf Manor, and Huntington Meadows, as well as numerous police and security officers these Defendants either employed or currently employ (doc. 1), raising claims arising from the death of Roger Owensby, Jr. (“Owensby”) while in police custody. The severity of the allegations are underscored by the flurry of motions filed by the parties in the instant case. Currently ripe and pending before the Court are the following motions: 1. Defendants City of Cincinnati and Police Chief Thomas Streicher, Jr.’s Motion to Bifurcate Claims From the Claims Against the Individual Police Officer Defendants (doc. 57); 2. Motion for Summary Judgment On Behalf of Defendants, The Village of Golf Manor, Chief Stephen Tilley, Robert Heiland, and John Doe # 7 N/K/A Chris Campbell (doc. 85); 3. Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Against Defendants Village of Golf Manor, Its Police Chief and Its Individual Police Officers For Their Failure to Provide Critical Medical Care (doc. 87); 4. Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Against Defendants City of Cincinnati, Its Chief of Police and Its Individual Police Officers For Their Failure to Provide Critical Medical Care (doc. 88); 5. Defendants City of Cincinnati and Police Chief Thomas Streicher, Jr.’s Motion for Reconsideration of March 25, 2004 Order Overruling Summary Judgment on Sovereign Immunity; Request to Certify Question to Ohio Supreme Court Regarding Revised Code 2744’s Constitutionality; Alternative Motion to Certify Conflict to Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (doc. 118). Also pending are a number of liminal motions filed by the parties in an effort to exclude various testimonial sources and other evidence at trial. The Court will consider each of these motions in turn. I. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION In its March 25, 2004 Order (doc. 113), this Court denied the City and its police officers statutory immunity from Plaintiffs state-law claims of wrongful death, negligence, assault, and battery pursuant to Ohio Rev.Code §§ 2744.02 and 2744.03, respectively. The Court found, based upon the recent Ohio Supreme Court precedent Butler v. Jordan, 92 Ohio St.3d 354, 750 N.E.2d 554 (2001) and consistent with its prior decisions, that these statutory immunity provisions violate the Ohio Constitution and, as a result, that they are unavailable to the Defendants in this case. The City seeks reconsideration of this determination or, in the alternative, certification of the question of their constitutionality to either the Ohio Supreme Court or the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for review (doc. 118). In its motion, the City contends that this Court erred in its holding that recent pronouncements of the Ohio Supreme Court imply that the Ohio court would conclude the statutes were unconstitutional if it were actually presented with the issue for review. In support, it invokes a number of cases decided contemporaneously with or subsequent to Butler that it purports necessarily imply that the Ohio Supreme Court has, in fact, accepted the constitutionality of these provisions. For example, the City’s motion advances the following contention: For example, on June 19, 2002, eleven months after its Butler decision, the Ohio Supreme Court decided Ryll v. Columbus Fireworks Display, Co., Inc., which set forth a three-tier analysis in adjudicating Revised Code § 2744 immunity. (2002), 95 Ohio St.3d 467, 469-70, 769 N.E.2d 372. The [Ohio] Supreme Court in Ryll, expressly stated that it was not entertaining any constitutional challenge to Chapter 24 Sovereign Immunity. (Id. at 468, 769 N.E.2d 372.) Instead, “the general rule of R.C. Chapter 2744 ‘political subdivisions are not liable in damages’ is applicable.” (Id. at 469, 769 N.E.2d 372) (quoting Greene Cty. Agricultural Society v. Liming (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 551, 556-57, 733 N.E.2d 1141). Therefore, the Supreme Court employed its three-tier analysis to determine whether the general rule immunized defendant City of Reynolds-burg from liability. Ryll, 95 Ohio St.3d at 469-70, 769 N.E.2d 372.... While the Ryll Court ultimately held Reynoldsburg was not entitled to immunity because it was not engaged in a “governmental function” under the test’s first prong, the Supreme Court in Ryll never held Chapter 2744 Sovereign Immunity was unconstitutional. If this were true, the Court would have stated the same before engaging in its three-part analysis to determine if the general immunity rule applied. More importantly, if Chapter 2744 Sovereign Immunity was struck down as unconstitutional in the Butler Decision, decided eleven months earlier, it follows the Supreme Court in Ryll would have immediately dismissed Reynoldsburg’s sovereign immunity claims and cited Butler. Stated differently, the Ryll Court’s three-tier sovereign immunity analysis coupled with its failure to state that its earlier Butler Decision might have invalidated sovereign immunity as unconstitutional, displaces any view that the Butler Decision supports plaintiffs’ Owensby’s view, (doc. 118)(all errors in original). The City simply misstates the holding of the Butler decision, this Court’s interpretation and application of the Butler decision, and the general framework this Court must follow when attempting to ascertain the status of state law. None of the cases the City cites directly hold that the statutory immunity provisions at issue are constitutional; simply put, this issue was never before the Ohio Supreme Court in any of these cases. As the Ohio Supreme Court noted in Ryll: The issue before this court is whether Reynoldsburg and Truro Township are immune from liability. Some members of this court are on record as believing sovereign immunity to be an unconstitutional infringement of Section 16, Article I of the Ohio Constitution. See Garrett v. Sandusky (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 139, 141, 624 N.E.2d 704 (Pfeifer, J., concurring). Today, however, we resolve the issue before us in favor of the appellant without addressing the constitutional issue. Ryll, 95 Ohio St.3d at 468, 769 N.E.2d 372 (emphasis added). Contrary to the City’s assertion, this Court does not find it unusual that the Ohio Supreme Court would decide the proper application of a statute — as it does in the cases the City advances — when the constitutionality of the statute is not challenged in that case or upon review. Far more important for our purposes, a review of Ohio Supreme Court caselaw fails to reveal any case where the constitutionality of the immunity statutes at issue has been expressly decided in the recent past. When faced with the need to resolve an undecided question of state law, a federal court must make the “best prediction, even in the absence of direct state precedent, of what the [state] Supreme Court would do if confronted with [the] question.” Combs v. International Ins. Co., 354 F.3d 568, 577 (6th Cir.2004)(addressing issue in diversity action); see also Welsh v. U.S., 844 F.2d 1239, 1245 (6th Cir.1988) (addressing issue in Federal Tort Claims Act case). In performing this inquiry, the Court “may rely upon analogous cases and relevant dicta in the decisional law of the State’s highest court, opinions of the State’s intermediate appellate courts to the extent that they are persuasive indicia of State Supreme Court direction, and persuasive opinions from other jurisdictions, including the ‘majority rule.’ ” Welsh, 844 F.2d at 1245 (emphasis added); see also generally Erie R.R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938). Significantly, whether this Court would find this rule advisable or fair is immaterial and is of no weight in the analysis. See Combs, 354 F.3d at 577; Kurczi v. Eli Lilly & Co., 113 F.3d 1426, 1429 (6th Cir.1997). In invoking and analyzing Butler to conclude that the Ohio Supreme Court would find the statutory provisions at issue unconstitutional, the Court followed this rule. Inarguably, Butler provides the most thorough discussion of this issue of any recent Ohio Supreme Court decision. While this discussion may properly be characterized as “dicta,” and while it may indeed be true that the “constitutionality of R.C. Chapter 2744 is not at issue in” Butler, these acknowledgments in no way detract from the reality that it is the most through, thoughtful — and only — discussion of the constitutionality of these provisions yet articulated by the Ohio Supreme Court. Butler, 92 Ohio St.3d at 375, 750 N.E.2d 554 (Cook, J.) (concurring in judgment). It remains the best “prediction... of what the [Ohio] Supreme Court would do” if presented with the question. Managed Health Care Assoc., Inc. v. Kethan, 209 F.3d 923, 927 (6th Cir.2000). None of the cases presented by the City hold to the contrary: they simply fail to address or discuss this issue at all. As a result, the Court finds no grounds upon which to reverse or otherwise reconsider its earlier determination. Furthermore, in light of the disposition of the pending summary judgment motions infra, the Court does not find that the interests of the instant litigation or judicial efficiency would be advanced by either certification of this question the Ohio Supreme Court or a grant of interlocutory appeal to and review by the Sixth Circuit. Accordingly, the City’s motion for reconsideration and/or certification will be denied. II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND This Order will resolve a number of different pending motions for summary judgment presented by the parties. Obviously, the parties purportedly dispute certain facts at issue in the case; the Court must determine whether any such disputes actually exist and, if so, whether they are sufficiently material to the determination of issues in the action to warrant trial before a jury. A thorough presentation of the facts, however, followed by focused discussion of specific disputes at relevant points later infra, may prove the most effective way to frame the facts upon which the instant motions must be decided. The first of the incidents relevant to the instant dispute occurred on or about September 27, 2000. On that day, Cincinnati Police Officers Robert Blaine Jorg (“Jorg”) and David William Hunter, Jr. (“Hunter”) were working undercover (“plain clothes”) duty in the area encompassing the 2000 block of Seymour Avenue. During the course of this shift, they observed what they suspected was a drug sale among four individuals at a public phone booth on Seymour Avenue between Sam’s Carryout and a Sunoco gasoline station. After requesting uniformed backup, they began to approach the four suspects; two of them, however, crossed Seymour Avenue in the direction of the Huntington Meadows Apartment complex. At this, the two officers separated as well; Hunter began pursuing the two suspects who had crossed Seymour Avenue, while Jorg approached the two individuals who remained in front of Sam’s Carryout. As Hunter closed in on the suspects, however, an unknown third party apparently loitering in the area alerted them to his pursuit by calling out “Five-O” or some similar sentiment, inciting them to flee. Hunter did not chase the two suspects but instead approached the man who had intervened and placed his arm around him. As he began to display his badge and inform him that his announcement was an improper interference with a police investigation, this unknown man began to flee as well. Officer Hunter attempted to stop him by grabbing his hooded sweatshirt, but it ripped as the man gave flight. Hunter’s subsequent efforts at drawing his weapon and instructing the individual to freeze were equally ineffective. Ultimately, despite chasing the man down Seymour Avenue and into the Huntington Meadows apartment complex, this suspect eluded Hunter’s capture as well. Hunter returned to Sam’s Carryout and to his partner, Officer Jorg, who had arrested the two individuals who remained at the Carryout without incident. Neither, however, possessed any drugs or large sums of money they aver would typically be found on individuals engaged in illicit drug transactions. Ultimately, both of the suspects apprehended at Sam’s Carryout were charged with criminal trespass, and one of them was also charged with an open container violation. In the course of the arrest, however, the officers attempted to gain information on who the unknown man who announced his presence to the other two officers might have been. Although the testimony of Hunter and Jorg are inconsistent as to whether Jorg saw the individual in question, it appears undisputed that Hunter did not know the individual and that Jorg was unable to identify him in any instance. Purportedly, the two detainees indicated that the person believed to have run from him went by the nickname of “LA”. Accordingly, much of the testimony surrounding the incident in question contends that Hunter and Jorg were seeking an individual who went by the name “LA” in conjunction with this incident. Officer Hunter described him as a clean-shaven African-American male of average height and weight, possessing a short “afro” and known by the alias of “LA.” On November 7, 2000, Cincinnati Police Officers Darren Sellers (“Sellers”) and Alexander Hasse (“Hasse”) arrested an individual on a minor misdemeanor charge of marijuana possession in front of Sam’s Carryout, the same location where Hunter and Jorg had witnessed the suspected drug transaction weeks earlier. Purportedly, however, they lacked a “Notice to Appear” (“NTA”) ticket book with which to effect the citation. At 7:17 p.m., they broadcast a restricted request for a NTA book to only two other police cruisers operating in the same district: The first was manned by Jorg and fellow Cincinnati Police Officer Patrick Catón (“Catón”), while the second was manned by Hunter. Accordingly, both of the officers who were involved in the earlier incident with “LA” at or about this same location were on the scene by 7:30 p.m., accompanied by three of their fellow officers. For some reason, Jorg began relating the events of the prior incident to the other officers present. At some point during the conversation, Hunter identified an African-American male walking on the opposite side of the street as possibly being “LA.” At the time, however, this individual was approximately 50 yards away; in their depositions, the other officers indicated that they could, at best, simply make out the silhouette of an individual across the street. Jorg, the senior officer on the scene, decided they would investigate; however, by this time, the individual in question had entered the Sunoco gas station convenience store next door. At 7:44 p.m., Catón and Hunter began walking to the convenience store; after retrieving his “PR-24” baton from his cruiser, Jorg joined them in waiting outside the convenience store while the subject of their surveillance — -the decedent, Roger Owensby, Jr. — purchased two cigars and an energy drink. Although the testimonial evidence is somewhat inconsistent as to whether Hunter was convinced at this point that the decedent was “LA,” it is undisputed that Jorg confronted and stopped Owensby as he attempted to leave the convenience store, and, pursuant to his consent, the officers began interrogating him. It is uncontested that he complied with their request and answered all their questions, including truthfully identifying himself as Roger Owensby; Jorg conceded that Ow-ensby was cooperative and respectful during this time. Jorg informed Owensby they were looking for a person guilty of assault and who is known to carry a firearm. In response, Owensby informed them that he was unarmed; not only did he lift his shirt to demonstrate that fact, but he also allowed Jorg to conduct a thorough “pat-down” search of his person, during which no weapon or suspicious item of any kind was found. Owensby also informed Jorg and Catón that he was not wanted by authorities for any matter and that they could confirm this if they liked. At some point during the continuing interrogation, Owensby complained about the treatment he received: “I don’t appreciate you coming at me this way.” When asked whether he had ever assaulted or run from a police officer, he indicated that he had not. At that moment, Hunter, who had been observing Owensby, approached very close to him and said, “Really? When’s the last time you ran from the police?” followed by, “That’s the guy.” At this point, Owensby attempted to slip past Officers Hunter and Catón and through the exit. He was immediately tackled by Officers Jorg and Catón, however, during which he was forced into a parked car and, ultimately, facedown in the parking lot outside the Sunoco convenience store. Jorg pinned him in a prone position with his arms under his chest while Officer Catón rested on his legs. At this point — 7:47 p.m. — Catón issued an “officer needs assistance” call, and the officers began struggling with Owensby in an attempt to purportedly handcuff him. Catón straddled Owensby’s thighs and buttocks while trying to extract his right arm from underneath his body, while Jorg lay across his shoulders and attempted to extract his left arm. It is undisputed that Catón struck Owensby in his lower back and right arm and that he also used his baton to strike Owensby on his legs as an attempt to exact “pain compliance” with his instructions. Jorg quickly progressed to placing Ow-ensby in a “head wrap,” a technique that required him to lie across Owensby’s shoulders and place his left arm around Mr. Owensby’s head, placing the crease in his elbow at the center of Owensby’s head. While so holding his head, Jorg employed a “mandibular angle pressure point pain compliance technique” by exerting pressure at the base of Owensby’s right ear with his right hand. He also placed his knee on Mr. Owensby’s left shoulder in the area of his left scapula. Shortly thereafter, Cincinnati and neighboring Golf Manor police officers began responding to Caton’s “officer needs assistance” call. Officer Sellers, waiting next door at the Sam’s Carryout parking lot, left his partner Hesse with the minor misdemeanor marijuana arrestee and ran to assist. He testified in his deposition that upon arriving on the scene, Owensby was not moving. He also testified that it was impossible to discern whether the difficulty the officers were experiencing in extracting Owensby’s arms from underneath him was the result of Owensby’s resistance or the consequence of the combined weight of the officers and Owensby. Eventually, Sellers was able to pull Owensby’s left arm out from under him; Cincinnati Police Officer Jason Hodge, also responding to the scene, used his baton to pry Owensby’s right arm out as well. As a result, Sellers was able to handcuff Owensby’s right and left wrists together behind his back, at which point he announced, “He’s cuffed.” Despite this, however, Catón allegedly demanded Hunter “Mace this motherfucker.” Hunter instructed Jorg to lift Owensby’s head so that he could mace him directly in the face; in response, according to one witness to the arrest, Jorg pulled Owens-by’s head up, turned his own head away, and drove his knees into Owensby’s back, according to a witness to the arrest. Despite the requirement articulated in the Cincinnati Police Use of Force Policy 12.545 that officers must, if possible, “spray[] chemical irritant.. .five to ten feet from an individual,” Hunter sprayed Mace into Owensby’s eyes and nose from a distance of six inches — twice (doc 88). In response, however, Owensby only grimaced, making no cry sound or cough. Furthermore, despite Owensby’s purported failure to offer any resistance, Officers Sellers and Hunter testified that they saw Catón repeatedly strike Owensby in the back after he was handcuffed. According to their testimony, he only ceased doing so after Hunter exclaimed, “What the hell is he doing!” At this point, all five of the Cincinnati police officers present on the scene — Jorg, Catón, Sellers, Hodge, and Hunter — stood up over the prone Owensby and picked him up off the ground. It is undisputed that Owensby’s face was cut and bleeding and that both Jorg and Catón had Owens-by’s blood on the sleeves of their shirts. According to testimony, the cruiser nearest the arrest scene at this point in time belonged to two Golf Manor officers also responding to the request for assistance, Defendants Robert Heiland and Chris Campbell (collectively, with Golf Manor, the “Golf Manor Defendants”). Jorg and Catón received permission from Heiland to place Owensby in the back of his cruiser and, after carrying him to the cruiser, placed him, handcuffed and unconscious, on the backseat of the Golf Manor cruiser. Catón proceeded to the other side of the cruiser and assisted in dragging Mr. Owensby headfirst into the rear of the automobile. In his deposition, Hunter testified that Catón continued to beat Owens-by even after he had been placed, handcuffed, in the back of the cruiser. What is not disputed, however, is that none of the officers on the scene, either employed by Cincinnati or Golf Manor, ever attempted to provide Owensby with any medical care from the injuries resulting from this encounter to this point or during any of the subsequent six minutes. At about this time, Cincinnati police officer Brian Brazile also arrived at the scene in response to the call. He was aware that Owensby had been maced and, upon inquiring about the source of blood on Jorg’s sleeve, was told, “That’s from the bad guy.” At that point, he walked over to the cruiser and, utilizing his flashlight, observed Owensby laying in the back of the Golf Manor cruiser. Noting that Owensby was bleeding and that it didn’t appear he could breathe, he told Heiland and Campbell, who were standing near the back door of the cruiser, “This looks fucked up. Can he breathe? It don’t look like he can from the way he’s laying.” In response, the Golf Manor officers allegedly shrugged their shoulders in indifference; in any case, it is undisputed that they did not investigate or provide Owensby with any medical care. Furthermore, despite his observations, Officer Brazile made no further investigation, comment, or effort to aid Owensby, and he walked away. Within a minute thereafter, Cincinnati Police Officer Victor Spellen arrived at the scene in his own police cruiser. He parked his car next to the Golf Manor cruiser in which Owensby lay, and his cruiser’s video camera recorded all of the subsequent activity around the Golf Manor cruiser. Despite having at least eleven Cincinnati police officers and two Golf Manor officers on the general scene or in the immediate vicinity at this time — three of whom were trained Emergency Medical Technicians (“EMTs”) — no officer provided any medical care to Roger Owensby. Instead, testimony seems uncontroverted that the officers greeted each other, secured items that might have been dropped during Owensby’s apprehension, and prepared for the arrival of their supervisors by making sure that their complete uniform was employed. Only Officers Spellen and Officer Brazile, looked at Owensby; yet, despite the fact it was getting dark, both commented on his appearance and noted that he appeared to be hurting a great deal. Approximately six minutes later, Cincinnati Sergeant Watts asked Heiland to roll down his window so that he could check on Owensby. When he did so, he promptly discovered that Owensby was not breathing. Owensby was immediately removed from the cruiser, and Catón and Hasse administered CPR; Owensby’s hands, however, were kept handcuffed behind his back during the resuscitation attempts. An officer called the EMTs of the local fire rescue department at 7:56 p.m., and the first responding unit arrived four minutes later at 8:00 p.m. Despite the response, Owensby was never successfully resuscitated. He was transported to the University of Cincinnati hospital emergency room where a team of doctors and nurses attempted to revive him; however, he was pronounced dead at 8:47 p.m. that evening. The coroner, after conducting a thorough investigation and autopsy, ruled Ow-ensby’s death a “homicide,” resulting from “police intervention: asphyxiation during restraint attempts.” The autopsy also revealed petechia, or small hemorrhages of the blood vessels in the eye, consistent with compression of the chest or the veins in the neck, and both the autopsy report and autopsy photograph reveal numerous cuts and abrasions to Owensby’s face. The Plaintiffs proffered medical testimony avers that that mechanical asphyxiation requires minutes to cause death, but the City of Cincinnati contends that its medical expert, Dr. Tom Neuman, has concluded that Owensby probably died instantly of a massive heart attack. The facts supporting the parties respective positions are hotly disputed; for example, those on the scene dispute whether Owensby walked to the Golf Manor cruiser at least somewhat under his own power or whether he was unconscious and physically placed in the cruiser by the officers. Plaintiff does concede, however, that it is medically impossible to determine, in any case, whether Owensby was dead or merely unconscious when placed in the Golf Manor cruiser. Applicable Police Department Procedures and Agreements The Cincinnati Police Department and the Golf Manor Police Department have both implemented various guidelines and policies that they aver serve to guide their officers as to how to respond to circumstances like those presented in the instant case. Cincinnati Police Procedure Manual § 12.545, the City’s “Use of Force” Policy, provides that: When officers have a right to make an arrest, they may use whatever force is reasonably necessary to apprehend the offender or to effect the arrest, and no more. They must avoid using unnecessary violence. Their privilege to use force is not limited to that amount of force necessary to protect themselves, but extends to that amount reasonably necessary to enable them to perform their duty. The use of deadly force to present escape of felony suspects is constitutionally unreasonable except where the escape presents an immediate risk of death or serious physical harm to the officer or another. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat of death or serious physical harm to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend the suspect does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. The courts could consider a choke hold or other similar type hold as deadly force. Choke holds should only be used with this in mind. Following any use of force resulting in a citizen’s injury, officers will ensure appropriate first aid is rendered immediately once the incident scene is stabilized. (doc. 99) (emphasis added). Nowhere in this document, however, is the term “stabilized” defined or otherwise delineated. A few sections later, § 12.600 of this Manual, entitled “Prisoners: Securing, Handling, and Transporting,” establishes certain expectations for the treatment and transportation of injured arrestees, including requirements that officers seek medical attention for arrestees “immediately” if an arrestee becomes sick or injured after the arrest, including summoning paramedics or providing direct transport to the University of Cincinnati Hospital (doc. 98). The Manual of Rules and Regulations and Disciplinary Process for the Cincinnati Police Division exposes officers to disciplinary action for failing to abide by these policies and guidelines (Id.). Golf Manor has similar policies, but they are not germane to the determination of the instant motion. Finally, an agreement between Cincinnati and Golf Manor (and among other law enforcement entities located in and around Hamilton County) is implicated in this case. Both are signatories to the “Hamilton County Local Government Mutual Aid Agreement for Law Enforcement.” Pursuant to provisions of the Ohio Revised Code, the parties executed the agreement “for the purpose of providing reciprocal police services across jurisdictional lines to enhance the capabilities of law enforcement to protect citizens and property throughout Hamilton County” (Id.). This “assistance” may be provided in a number of circumstances and both with and without request, including the need to investigate crimes and to respond to requests for assistance. Subdivision VI of this agreement provides some “General Terms and Procedures” that apply to support rendered thereunder. In particular, it provides that: Whenever the law enforcement employees of one cooperating Agency are providing police services upon request to another cooperating Agency they will be under the lawful direction and authority of the commanding law enforcement officer of the Agency to which they are rendering assistance. Officers shall be subject to the code of ethics, policies, and rules and regulations of their employing Agency at all times. Id. III. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD Although a grant of summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 is not a substitute for trial, it is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Id.; see also, e.g., Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 368 U.S. 464, 82 S.Ct. 486, 7 L.Ed.2d 458 (1962); LaPointe v. United Autoworkers Local 600, 8 F.3d 376, 378 (6th Cir.1993); Osborn v. Ashland County Bd. of Alcohol, Drug Addiction and Mental Health Sews., 979 F.2d 1131, 1133 (6th Cir.1992) (per curiam). In reviewing the instant motion, “this Court must determine whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.” Patton v. Bearden, 8 F.3d 343, 346 (6th Cir.1993), quoting in part Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)(in-ternal quotation marks omitted). The process of moving for and evaluating a motion for summary judgment and the respective burdens it imposes upon the movant and the non-movant are well settled. First, “a party seeking summary judgment ... bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of [the record] which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact[.]” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); see also LaPointe, 8 F.3d at 378; Guarino v. Brookfield Township Trustees, 980 F.2d 399, 405 (6th Cir.1992); Street v. J.C. Bradford & Co., 886 F.2d 1472, 1479 (6th Cir.1989). The movant may do so by merely identifying that the non-moving party lacks evidence to support an essential element of its case. See Barnhart v. Pickrel, Schaeffer & Ebeling Co., L.P.A., 12 F.3d 1382, 1389 (6th Cir.1993). Faced with such a motion, the non-mov-ant, after completion of sufficient discovery, must submit evidence in support of any material element of a claim or defense at issue in the motion on which it would bear the burden of proof at trial, even if the moving party has not submitted evidence to negate the existence of that material fact. See Celotex, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S.Ct. 2548; Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). As the “requirement [of the Rule] is that there be no genuine issue of material fact,” an “alleged factual dispute between the parties” as to some ancillary matter “will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247-48, 106 S.Ct. 2505 (emphasis added); see generally Booker v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co., Inc., 879 F.2d 1304, 1310 (6th Cir.1989). Furthermore, “[t]he mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the [non-movant’s] position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the [non-movant].” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505; see also Gregory v. Hunt, 24 F.3d 781, 784 (6th Cir.1994). Accordingly, the non-movant must present “significant probative evidence” demonstrating that “there is [more than] some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts” to survive summary judgment and proceed to trial on the merits. Moore v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., 8 F.3d 335, 339-40 (6th Cir.1993); see also Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548; Guarino, 980 F.2d at 405. Although the non-movant need not cite specific page numbers of the record in support of its claims or defenses, “the designated portions of the record must be presented with enough specificity that the district court can readily identify the facts upon which the non-moving party relies.” Guarino, 980 F.2d at 405, quoting Inter-Royal Corp. v. Sponseller, 889 F.2d 108, 111 (6th Cir.1989) (internal quotation marks omitted). In contrast, mere conclusory allegations are patently insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment. See McDonald v. Union Camp Corp., 898 F.2d 1155, 1162 (6th Cir.1990). The Court must view all submitted evidence, facts, and reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986); Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970); United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 82 S.Ct. 993, 8 L.Ed.2d 176 (1962). Furthermore, the district court may not weigh evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses in deciding the motion. See Adams v. Metiva, 31 F.3d 375, 378 (6th Cir.1994). Ultimately, the movant bears the burden of demonstrating that no material facts are in dispute. See Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348. The fact that the non-moving party fails to respond to the motion does not lessen the burden on either the moving party or the Court to demonstrate that summary judgment is appropriate. See Guarino, 980 F.2d at 410; Carver v. Bunch, 946 F.2d 451, 454-55 (6th Cir.1991). The primary claims placed at issue by the summary judgment motions currently before the Court are Plaintiffs constitutional deprivations for denial of medical care and excessive force, both brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This statute provides, in relevant part: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Accordingly, before it is entitled to relief, the Plaintiff must establish that Owensby was (1) deprived of a right secured by either the Constitution or laws of the United States (2) by the conduct of a person acting under color of state law. See, e.g., American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 50-51, 119 S.Ct. 977, 143 L.Ed.2d 130 (1999); Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 151, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970); Alkire v. Irving, 330 F.3d 802, 813 (6th Cir.2003). Before the municipality may be held liable for the violation, the Estate must prove that “(1) a constitutional violated occurred; and (2) that the [City] is responsible for that violation.” Graham ex rel. Estate of Graham v. County of Washtenaw, 358 F.3d 377, 382 (6th Cir.2004), quoting in part Doe v. Claiborne Cty., 103 F.3d 495, 505-06 (6th Cir.1996) (internal quotations omitted). There is no dispute among the parties that the officers of both Defendant municipal police departments were acting under color of state law in their official capacities at the times that the incidents forming the basis of this lawsuit occurred. Unsurprisingly, much of the summary judgment briefing therefore debates whether Owensby was deprived of a constitutional right by the officers and, perhaps in turn, the municipal Defendants. The Court will begin by addressing the Plaintiffs motions for summary judgment. IV. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST THE CINCINNATI DEFENDANTS’ Plaintiff seeks summary judgment in its favor against the City of Cincinnati, Police Chief Streicher, and the individual Cincinnati Police Officers Jorg, Catón, Hunter, Sellers, and Spellen (collectively, the “Cincinnati Defendants”) as to its claim for the unconstitutional denial of medical care to Owensby on November 7, 2000. The Cincinnati Defendants contend that, at best, numerous questions of fact exist precluding the requested grant of summary judgment, including the cause of decedent’s death and whether the existing policies and procedures and the training afforded the officers were sufficient to protect Owensby’s constitutional rights. Upon consideration, however, the Court finds that reasonable jurors could only conclude that at least some of the Cincinnati Defendants violated Owensby’s constitutional right to receive medical care on the night of his arrest and that, as a result, the Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment in its favor as to this claim. A. Applicable Legal Standard For Plaintiff’s Failure To Provide Medical Care Claims As a threshold matter, the Court must determine the appropriate standard by which to assess the Cincinnati Defendants’ failure to provide medical care (and, indeed, by which to assess the identical claims against the Golf Manor Defendants as well). In its motion, the Plaintiff acknowledges that “[cjourts often analyze the constitutional duty to provide medical care for pretrial detainees as a Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process violation;” it contends, however, that on the facts of this case the Fourth Amendment controls and that, as a result, the officer’s conduct must be evaluated by a “reasonableness” standard. In response, the Cincinnati Defendants aver that a long line of caselaw conclusively establishes that Ow-ensby’s rights in the complained-of circumstances were governed by the Fourteenth Amendment and that the “deliberate indifference” standard therefore applies. At the fore, it is undisputed by the parties and well established by decades of constitutional jurisprudence that the Fourth Amendment governs the rights that citizens enjoy in being secure from “unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S. CONST. AMEND. IV. Accordingly, a plaintiff advancing excessive force claims against public officials or servants must prove that the official action was, under the factual circumstances of the particular case, objectively unreasonable. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 394-97, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989); Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 7-9, 105 S.Ct. 1694, 85 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985); Phelps v. Coy, 286 F.3d 295 (6th Cir.2002); Scott v. Clay County, Tenn., 205 F.3d 867, 876 (6th Cir.2000). Plaintiff, however, invokes another element of the Graham holding: The Supreme Court has long held that the notion of substantive due process is not to be extended to secure protection of rights already protected by other, more specific Amendments. In Graham, the Supreme Court was required to determine the proper standard to be applied in assessing a plaintiffs claims for excessive force. The Court concluded that “[b]ecause the Fourth Amendment provides an explicit textual source of constitutional protection against this sort of physically intrusive governmental conduct, that Amendment, not the more generalized notion of ‘substantive due process,’ must be the guide” for analyzing the excessive force claim. Id., 490 U.S. at 395, 109 S.Ct. 1865. As the Plaintiff notes, the Supreme Court recently reaffirmed this principle in County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 118 S.Ct. 1708, 140 L.Ed.2d 1043 (1998): Because we have always been reluctant to expand the concept of substantive due process, we held in Graham v. Connor that [w]here a particular Amendment provides an explicit textual source of constitutional protection against a particular sort of government behavior, that Amendment, not the more generalized notion of substantive due process, must be the guide for analyzing these claims. Id., 523 U.S. at 842, 118 S.Ct. 1708, quoting in part Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 273, 114 S.Ct. 807, 127 L.Ed.2d 114 (1994) (plurality opinion of Rehnquist, C.J.)(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Noting the Fourth Amendment standard and invoking the Graham principle requiring that substantive due process rights be narrowly construed, the Plaintiff contends that because all of the events at issue in the instant case arise from “the conduct of police officers in stopping and seizing Roger Owensby, Jr.,” all of the instant claims for failure to provide medical care should be “evaluated.. .under the rubric of a Fourth Amendment violation” (doc. 88). In support, it cites two primary cases where the deciding courts utilized such a standard; upon analysis, however, these cases lend little substantive aid. The first, Estate of Phillips v. Milwaukee, 123 F.3d 586, 595 (7th Cir.1997), involved the death of an arrestee who died after being handcuffed and placed in a prone position on the floor. Fundamentally different from the instant case, the issue in Estate of Phillips is whether placing and maintaining the decedent in the prone position, absent any notice that he was suffering from conditions that might more easily render him in distress in such a position, constituted “excessive force.” As the court noted, Our holding that it was reasonable to place Mr. Phillips on the floor in a prone position necessarily implies that the officers did not use “deadly” force to restrain Mr. Phillips.... For a particular application of force to be classified as “deadly,” it must at least “carry with it a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily harm.”... Under this standard, restraining a person in a prone position, with constant monitoring, cannot be characterized, in itself, as “deadly” force. Here, the officers did not hogtie, choke or transport Mr. Phillips. Nor were his medical conditions (an enlarged heart, an enlarged thyroid, Graves’ disease and a thyroid storm), which were contributing factors to Mr. Phillips’ death, observable to the untrained eye.... The officers placed Mr. Phillips in a face down position to restrain him from injuring himself and others. That force, it turned out, when combined with Mr. Phillips’ other health problems, resulted in Mr. Phillips’ death. But the question is not whether the officers’ actions aggravated an undiscovered injury or condition, but whether their actions were objectively reasonable under the circumstances. Placing Mr. Phillips in a prone position was reasonable under the circumstances and therefore comported with the Fourth Amendment. Id., 123 F.3d at 593-94 (internal citations omitted). To draw this distinction, it is important to note that the plaintiff in Estate of Phillips did not raise a claim for denial of medical care claim in the suit. Almost in passing, the Seventh Circuit noted that it had been “assuming that the police officers had a duty to provide medical attention and not to cut off medical aid” upon the decedent’s seizure as it performed its analysis. Id., 123 F.3d at 595. It then, however, pronounced that “it is somewhat awkward to conceptualize such an act or failure to act as ‘excessive force;’ indeed, the duty to render medical aid is more often thought of as one arising under the Due Process Clause or the Eighth Amendment.” Id. It then noted that the plaintiff had advanced such an argument in briefing, citing DeShaney, but then abandoned it at oral argument. It ultimately concluded, largely because the case involved excessive force claims, that “the Due Process Clause is inapplicable to the instant case.” Id., 123 F.3d at 596. To be sure, there is some language in the opinion that could be read to support this approach; the Seventh Circuit readily acknowledges that “it is sometimes difficult to determine when an arrest has ended” for purposes of the transition from Fourth Amendment to Fourteenth Amendment protections and that it “think[s] that it would be objectively unreasonable in certain circumstances to deny needed medical attention to an individual placed in custody who cannot help himself.” Id. The Court finds, however, that when the case is presented against the factual and legal background of this case, this language is unpersuasive. The second cited case, Alexander v. Beale Street Blues Co., 108 F.Supp.2d 934 (W.D.Tenn.1999), found a similarly bound and prone arrestee sharing an equally unfortunate demise. His parents brought claims for denial of medical care under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court, however, citing Estate of Phillips, struck all such claims, finding that these claims were governed by the Fourth Amendment: The court also finds that all of plaintiffs’ allegations arising under the Fourteenth Amendment should be stricken as being immaterial. All of plaintiffs’ allegations share the common nucleus that they are based on the officers’ alleged conduct in seizing Alexander and their failure to provide medical attention during the seizure. Such claims are more appropriately analyzed under the reasonableness standard of the Fourth Amendment rather than under a substantive due process approach.... Plaintiffs’ medical indifference claim will be examined under the framework of the Fourth Amendment to determine whether the officers’ alleged denial of medical care was reasonable under the circumstances. Id, 108 F.Supp.2d at 940-41. Although it certainly stands for the proposition for which Plaintiff invokes it, there is no real analysis in the decision justifying this determination. In fact, the case appears to be somewhat of an aberration in the law. The same district court, in deciding a case a little over a year later and citing Alexander as precedent, nonetheless utilized a Fourteenth Amendment “deliberate indifference” standard in evaluating the plaintiffs claim for denial of medical care. See Davenport v. Simmons, 192 F.Supp.2d 812, 822 (W.D.Tenn.2001). Despite Plaintiffs assertions to the contrary, the doctrine of constitutional interpretation established in Graham and followed since — while inarguably accurate— does not inevitably lead to the application of the Fourth Amendment in this contejct. Indeed, it is worth noting that the Supreme Court, applying the Graham rationale, found that the Sacramento plaintiff did not enjoy a protected right under the Fourth Amendment. The Court appropriately turns to an analysis of the genesis and constitutional foundation for an arres-tee’s right to medical care in reaching a decision on this issue. The Supreme Court first held that denial of medical care to prisoners constituted a constitutionally cognizable injury in Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976). Recognizing that the Eighth Amendment has come to proscribe punishments “incompatible with the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society,” the Court concluded that deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners constitutes the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.. .proscribed by the Eighth Amendment. This is true whether the indifference is manifested by prison doctors in their response to the prisoner’s needs or by prison guards in intentionally denying or delaying access to medical care or intentionally interfering with the treatment once prescribed. Regardless of how evidenced, deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious illness or injury states a cause of action under § 1983. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104-105, 97 S.Ct. 285 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The Eighth Amendment, however, applies only to those who have been convicted of a crime; “[T]he State does not acquire the power to punish with which the Eighth Amendment is concerned until after it has secured a formal adjudication of guilt in accordance with due process of law.” Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 671-72, 97 S.Ct. 1401, 51 L.Ed.2d 711 (1977). Accordingly, the Eighth Amendment has no, application to pretrial detainees, and it provides them no constitutional protection from denial of medical care. See id., 430 U.S. at 671 & n. 40, 97 S.Ct. 1401; see also City of Revere v. Massachusetts General Hosp., 463 U.S. 239, 244, 103 S.Ct. 2979, 77 L.Ed.2d 605 (1983). Three years later, the Supreme Court delineated the general contours of a pretrial detainee’s constitutional rights in Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979). In considering the plaintiffs’ challenges to a number of their conditions of confinement, such as overcrowding and improper searches, the Court held that courts reviewing such claims “must decide whether the disability is imposed for the purpose of punishment or whether it is but an incident of some other legitimate governmental purpose.” Id, 441 U.S. at 538, 99 S.Ct. 1861. In applying the test, the Court found that if a particular condition or restriction of pretrial detention is reasonably related to a legitimate governmental objective, it does not, without more, amount to “punishment.” Conversely, if a restriction or condition is not reasonably related to a legitimate goal — if it is arbitrary or purposeless — a court permissibly may infer that the purpose of the governmental action is punishment that may not constitutionally be inflicted upon detainees qua detainees. Id., 441 U.S. at 539, 99 S.Ct. 1861 (emphasis in original). The Supreme Court has since used this test in evaluating the constitutionality of a number of restrictions placed on pretrial detainees. See, e.g., United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 746-47, 107 S.Ct. 2095, 95 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987)(evaluating Bail Reform Act’s authorization of pretrial detention); Block v. Rutherford, 468 U.S. 576, 588-92, 104 S.Ct. 3227, 82 L.Ed.2d 438 (1984)(evaluating policy prohibiting contact visits for pretrial detainees). In City of Revere, the Court first directly considered the protection of a pretrial detainee’s right to medical care. Although the Court concluded that although Eighth Amendment protection was unavailable, it held that the “Due Process Clause [of the-Fourteenth Amendment] ... does require the responsible government or governmental agency to provide medical care to persons. . .who have been injured while being apprehended by the police.” Id., 463 U.S. at 244, 103 S.Ct. 2979. Although it did not articulate a particular standard, the Court concluded that “the due process rights of a [pretrial detainee] are at least as great as the Eighth Amendment protections available to a convicted prisoner.” Id. (emphasis added); see also Roberts v. City of Troy, 773 F.2d 720, 723 (6th Cir.1985). In the case before it, however, the Court found that the defendant municipality “fulfilled its constitutional obligation by seeing that [the plaintiff] was taken promptly to a hospital that provided the treatment necessary for his injury.” Id., 463 U.S. at 245, 103 S.Ct. 2979. The pertinent question not yet directly addressed by the Supreme Court, and the issue raised by the Plaintiff, is what constitutional protection and standard is most applicable in such circumstances. See, e.g., Spencer v. Knapheide Truck Equipment Co., 183 F.3d 902, 906 (8th Cir.1999) (“The standard to be applied in assessing a pretrial detainee’s claim of due process violations, such as this one, is not entirely clear.”); Patten v. Nichols, 274 F.3d 829, 834 (4th Cir.2001) (noting that “the Supreme Court has yet to decide what standard should govern”). Clearly, the Eighth Amendment’s “deliberate indifference” standard is the minimum threshold permissible under Revere; however, a reasonable argument can certainly be made that pretrial detainees should be entitled to greater protection. While the Eighth Amendment forbids convicted prisoners from receiving “cruel and unusual punishments,” pretrial detainees — not yet either charged or convicted of any crime — may not be subjected to any punishment at all. See Revere, 463 U.S. at 244, 103 S.Ct. 2979; Ingraham, 430 U.S. at 671-72, 97 S.Ct. 1401; Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 539, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979). In fact, the Supreme Court has expressly held that, in other circumstances, individuals “involuntarily” held by the state who are not yet convicted of any crime have been afforded greater rights to medical care. In Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 321-322, 102 S.Ct. 2452, 73 L.Ed.2d 28 (1982), the Supreme Court held that a developmentally disabled individual committed involuntarily to a state hospital retains constitutionally protected liberty interests under the Fourteenth Amendment. “Persons who have been involuntarily committed are entitled to more considerate treatment and conditions of confinement than criminals whose conditions of confinement are designed to punish.” Id., 457 U.S. at 321-22, 102 S.Ct. 2452. Although the question of medical care was not before the Court, it generally held that decisions regarding the institutionalized person’s care be subject to professional judgment, and it found that liability could be established “only when the decision by the professional is such a substantial departure from accepted professional judgment, practice, or standards as to demonstrate that the person responsible actually did not base the decision on such a judgment.” Id., 457 U.S. at 323, 102 S.Ct. 2452. In sum, the Supreme Court mandated essentially slightly heightened malpractice standard on such care. The Sixth Circuit has expressly recognized and adopted this approach, allowing plaintiffs to prevail on violations of their substantive due process rights if the defendants “committed a substantial departure from accepted professional judgment.” Terrance v. Northville Regional Pscyhiatric Hosp., 286 F.3d 834, 850 (6th Cir.2002). Although the Courts are somewhat split on the proper approach, a strong majority seems to have adopted the Eighth Amendment’s “deliberate indifference” standard in assessing whether the rights of pretrial detainees to medical care under the Fourteenth Amendment have been violated. See, e.g., Lolli v. County of Orange, 351 F.3d 410, 418-419 (9th Cir.2003)(utilizing “deliberate indifference standard”); Brown v. Harris, 240 F.3d 383, 388 (4th Cir.2001)(utilizing “deliberate indifference” standard); Taylor v. Adams, 221 F.3d 1254, 1258 (11th Cir.2000); Barrie v. Grand County, Utah, 119 F.3d 862, 868-69 (10th Cir.1997); Murphy v. Walker, 51 F.3d 714, 717 (7th Cir.1995)(utilizing “deliberate indifference” standard); Hare v. City of Corinth, Miss., 74 F.3d 633, 649 (5th Cir.1996)(en banc)(utilizing “deliberate indifference” standard). Most significant, the Sixth Circuit has adopted and repeatedly reaffirmed this standard as well. In light of the interpreting caselaw, the Court finds no justification for imposing a lower “reasonableness” threshold of liability in this case. The Court will, however, interpret and apply the applicable Sixth Circuit cases in light of all of the substantive precedent, including the Bell and Revere decisions. In order to succeed on its motion for summary judgment as to the denial of medical care against the City of Cincinnati and its Defendant officers, the Plaintiff must demonstrate that they acted with “deliberate indifference to [Owensby’s] serious medical needs.” Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104, 97 S.Ct. 285. The Supreme Court concluded that this standard contains both an objective and a subjective component. See Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298-99, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 115 L.Ed.2d 271 (1991). Under the objective component, the plaintiff must prove that the medical need was “sufficiently serious.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994); Watkins v. City of Battle Creek, 273 F.3d 682, 687 (6th Cir.2001). The subjective component, by comparison, requires that the defendant have a “sufficiently culpable state of mind.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834, 114 S.Ct. 1970. As the Sixth Circuit has repeatedly noted, “[djeliberate indifference is not mere negligence;” it is not sufficient that the officer should have objectively known of an obvious risk or risks to the Plaintiffs well-being. Watkins, 273 F.3d at 686; see also Weaver v. Shadoan, 340 F.3d 398, 410 (6th Cir.2003). Rather, a defendant must both “know[ ] of and disregard[ ] an excessive risk to [a plaintiffs] health or safety.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834, 114 S.Ct. 1970. Accordingly, culpable defendants must both “be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and [they] must also draw the inference.” Id.; see also Watkins, 273 F.3d at 687. Accordingly, “[k]nowledge of the asserted serious needs or of circumstances clearly indicating the existence of such needs... is essential to a finding of deliberate indifference.” Horn, 22 F.3d at 660. It is not necessary, however, to demonstrate that the officials had a conscious intent to inflict pain upon the Plaintiff in this case. See Horn by Parks v. Madison County Fiscal Court, 22 F.3d 653, 660 (6th Cir.1994)(noting that willful blindness to risks may suffice); Molton v. City of Cleveland, 839 F.2d 240, 243 (6th Cir.1988). Furthermore, demonstration of the fact that the official actually drew the required inference may be demonstrated through circumstantial evidence or by showing that the risk was “obvious.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 842, 114 S.Ct. 1970 (“Whether a prison official had the requisite knowledge of a substantial risk is a question of fact subject to demonstration in the usual ways, including inference from circumstantial evidence, ... and a factfin-der may conclude that a prison official knew of a substantial risk from the very fact that the risk was obvious.”); Watkins, 273 F.3d at 687-88; Horn, 22 F.3d at 660. B. Application of the “Deliberate Indifference” Standard to the Actions of the Defendant Cincinnati Officers There appears to be no bona fide dispute among the parties that, viewed objectively, Owensby’s medical need was “sufficiently serious.” To the extent that such a dispute does exist, however, the Court finds this prong satisfied as a matter of law. Regardless of whether Owens-by’s condition was the result of injuries suffered during the struggle with the Cincinnati police officers or his own physical condition—or a combination thereof—a cessation of breathing and an arrested heart are “serious medical needs” worthy of immediate care. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104, 97 S.Ct. 285. All of the officers, however, dispute that they were subjectively aware of Owensby’s distress and that, accordingly, summary judgment against them is inappropriate. The Court turns to evaluate the actions of each of the individual Cincinnati officers to determine whether their behavior satisfied the “subjective” prong of the “deliberate indifference” standard for failure to provide Owensby with medical care. 1. Officer Spellen Officer Spellen, a trained EMT, was one of the few officers who actually observed Owensby in the rear of the car prior to Sergeant Watts’s announcement that Owensby was not breathing. Although he arrived at the scene after Owensby had been subdued and placed in the back of the Golf Manor cruiser, he was aware that Owensby had been maced. Furthermore, and far more s