Full opinion text
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER MacLAUGHLIN, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on the defendants’ alternative motions to amend the judgment, for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or for a new trial, and the plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. The plaintiffs claimed a violation of their constitutional rights stemming from their involuntary confinement to detoxification centers for a period of three days. After a nine day trial, the jury found each of the defendants liable and assessed compensatory damages in the aggregate amount of $1 million and punitive damages in the aggregate amount of $12,000. FACTS This case is a study in the abuse of governmental power. On December 5,1980, as Alexander and Irene Dick, husband and wife, were preparing to leave their home in St. James, Minnesota, for a company Christmas party, a group of uniformed sheriff’s deputies appeared at their door bearing orders for their immediate arrest and confinement to detoxification centers. The Dicks, recent immigrants from Scotland, were not intoxicated when they were arrested, nor had they been drinking that day. The Dicks had received no notice of any proceedings against them prior to being served with the orders. The orders had been issued without a hearing by Watonwan County Court Judge David R. Teigum and were based on petitions for judicial commitment drafted by Watonwan County Attorney Daniel Birkholz and signed by defendant Deborah Hunter, then a mental health worker for the defendant Tri-County Human Services Board (Tri-County Board). The only grounds for commitment listed in the petitions were statements made by the Dicks’ 15-year-old daughter Valerie to Hunter and defendant Jerry Ruppert, then a chemical dependency counselor, employed by the Tri-County Board. Valerie, a ninth grader at the time of the incident who had turned 15 just three weeks earlier, had been referred to Hunter by her school guidance counselor after Valerie had expressed an interest in obtaining foster care. Hunter and Ruppert met with Valerie and discussed with her the problems she said she was having at home. Although Valerie admitted to Hunter and Ruppert that her parents had never abused or neglected her, she insisted that she wanted to be placed in a foster home. At trial, Valerie testified that her motive for obtaining foster care was so that she would be able to “get away with a lot more,” such as staying out late at night. During the course of her conversation with Hunter and Ruppert, Valerie told the defendants that her parents drank too much, were endangering their health by drinking, were sometimes physically abusive toward one another, and that her father sometimes drove after drinking. Valerie also recounted having heard of an incident on October 31, 1980, in which her mother allegedly threatened her father with a knife. Finally, she mentioned that her parents were planning to attend a Christmas party that evening. Without attempting to verify any of Valerie’s statements about her parents, and without waiting to consult with their supervisor, defendant William Schutt, who was unavailable at the time, Hunter and Ruppert went to the office of County Attorney Birkholz that same day, December 5, 1980, for the purpose of obtaining commitment petitions against the Dicks. Hunter and Ruppert met with Birkholz and relayed Valerie’s statements to him. Like Hunter and Ruppert, Birkholz made no attempt to verify any of Valerie’s statements. The only “confirmation” he sought was to have Valerie brought to his office to repeat her accusations against her parents. At no time did Birkholz, Hunter, or Ruppert attempt to contact the Dicks’ 35-year-old daughter Irene Young, also a resident of St. James, to determine if Valerie’s statements were true, even though they knew that Irene and her husband lived in St. James and had frequent contact with the Dicks. Hunter and Birkholz testified that they did not contact Irene Young because Valerie asked them not to. The defendants also did not attempt to contact other people who could have provided information about the Dicks such as their employers, physician, or minister. Instead they relied exclusively on Valerie’s version of the facts even though both Hunter and Ruppert admittedly were aware that young children sometimes “stretch the truth” in order to get into foster homes. Based on Valerie’s statements, Birkholz, Hunter, and Ruppert jointly decided not only to place Valerie in foster care, but also to seek the Dicks’ commitment to detoxification centers. The initial suggestion to confine the Dicks was made by Ruppert, a recovering alcoholic himself who five years earlier had been committed for extended alcoholism treatment. The decision to seek the Dicks’ immediate confinement was based on Valerie’s statement that her parents were planning to attend a Christmas party that evening. Birkholz, Hunter, and Ruppert wanted to prevent the Dicks from attending the party because of their alleged fear that Alexander Dick might become intoxicated at the party and afterwards attempt to drive. The three officials never considered any alternatives short of immediate confinement to avoid this supposed threat. That same afternoon, Birkholz had commitment petitions drawn up for both of the Dicks. A dependency petition for Valerie was also prepared. The petition for commitment of Alexander Dick stated: 7. Patient is believed to be inebriate because[:] Petitioner has been informed of the following facts by Valerie Dick and believes them to be true. That as long as Valerie Dick can remember, her father has been consuming alcohol to excess. That patient drinks to the point of intoxication and passes out on the average of 5 out of 7 nights per week. That patient after he has been drinking, he becomes very vulgar, profane and abusive with other family members. That patient also becomes violent and has, on occasion, becomes [sic] physically abusive towards his wife. That patient is dangerous to other [sic] on account of his violent behavior and he also drives a car when he is intoxicated. The petition for commitment of Irene Dick stated: 7. Patient is believed to be inebriate because[:] Petitioner has been informed of the following facts by Valerie Dick and believes them to be true. That as long as Valerie Dick can remember, her mother has been consuming alcohol to excess. That patient drinks to the point of intoxication. That when patient has been drinking alcohol she commonly becomes physically'ill and throws up, and at times expells [sic] blood. That patient becomes violent when she has been drinking to excess, and within the last several weeks patient, with a knife in her hand, threatened to stab her husband and the police were called to settle the dispute of the two drinking parents. That the patient is physically unable to care for herself when she becomes ill and is endangering her physical well-being with the protracted, excessive use of alcohol. That the patient is also on medication and should not be using alcohol to excess. These petitions were riddled with inaccuracies. The most glaring inaccuracy was the statement in Irene Dick’s petition that “within the last several weeks, patient, with a knife in her hand, threatened to stab her husband and the police were called to settle the dispute of the two drinking parents.” Alexander Dick did summon police officer Larry Bohm to the Dick home on October 31, 1980, for assistance in quieting Irene Dick who had had too much to drink. But Bohm testified that neither of the Dicks were violent on that occasion, and that Alexander Dick was not intoxicated. Although Irene Dick used the words “I’ll murder him” with reference to her husband, Bohm regarded the statement as a venting of frustrations rather than as a serious threat. At no time did Irene Dick have a knife or any other weapon in her hand. Renee Snyder, a Tri-County Board social worker, was also called to the Dick home that night. She also testified that the Dicks were not violent and characterized her role that evening as that of “tucking the Dicks into bed.” Hunter and Ruppert knew of the October 31 domestic dispute and had access to Snyder’s written report of the incident. Nevertheless, they included in the petition Valerie’s statement to them that she had heard that her mother had threatened her father with a knife as if the statement were true, failing to even note on the petition that the statement was not based on Valerie’s personal knowledge. The defendants never attempted to contact Snyder or Bohm, the only people who were actually present on the night in question, to see if Valerie’s secondhand account was true. The petition’s reference to Irene Dick’s vomiting blood was also inaccurate. Mrs. Dick testified that she had coughed up blood on one occasion but that it was related to a hernia operation and had nothing to do with drinking. The statement that Irene Dick was “on medication and should not be drinking to excess” was, like the other statements, based solely on the word of Valerie, a 15-year-old child. No attempt was made to confirm these statements with the Dicks’ physician. The statement that Alexander Dick “drives a car when he is intoxicated” was a mischaracterization in that Valerie had stated only that her father sometimes drove after drinking. No one attempted to verify the statement by checking Alexander Dick’s driving record which, in fact, was unblemished. Moreover, to the extent that the threat that Alexander Dick might become intoxicated at the Christmas party that evening and attempt to drive was the basis for the defendants’ belief that he was dangerous and needed to be immediately confined, the defendants were tragically mistaken. Unknown to Hunter, Ruppert, or Birkholz, none of whom bothered to check into the matter, the Dicks had already arranged for their son-in-law to drive them to and from the Christmas party that evening. After the commitment petitions were prepared, they were filed with the clerk of county court and presented to Judge Teigum who, that same afternoon, issued “hold” orders for the Dicks’ immediate arrest and confinement. These orders were issued without a hearing and without notice to the Dicks of the charges against them. Judge Teigum had no information before him other than that contained in the commitment petitions prepared by Birkholz, Hunter, and Ruppert which in turn relied entirely on the statements of a 15-year-old child. On the basis of the hold orders, the Dicks were arrested at their home by a group of five or six police officers and sheriff’s deputies who arrived in three marked squad cars and one unmarked car. Although stunned by their arrest, the Dicks, neither of whom had ever before been arrested, complied with the orders peacefully. The Dicks were transported in marked police cars to separate detoxification centers one of which was located in Heron Lake, Minnesota, approximately 30 miles southwest of St. James, and the other of which was located in Fairmont, Minnesota, approximately 30 miles southeast of St. James. They were confined at the detoxification centers without a hearing and against their will from the evening of Friday, December 5, 1980, to Monday, December 8,1980. The conditions at the detoxification center to which Alexander Dick was confined were deplorable. The building was dirty, dilapidated, and reeked of sewage. Mr. Dick, who has an artificial leg, was given ill-fitting crutches and hospital slippers which restricted his movement and caused him considerable embarrassment. His room contained a camping cot, but no bed. The physical conditions at the detoxification center to which Irene Dick was confined were much better. However, during her confinement she was visited by defendant Ruppert who threatened her with confinement to a far less desirable institution unless she would agree to voluntarily commit herself for treatment. On Monday morning, the Dicks were taken to the county courthouse for a probable cause hearing. Pursuant to a stipulation of the parties, the hearing was continued for six months on the condition that the Dicks attend alcohol counseling sessions. The Dicks attended two sessions but were never contacted about further sessions. On June 12, 1981, the county dismissed its case against the Dicks. The Dicks brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a deprivation of their liberty without due process of law. They alleged that defendants Hunter and Ruppert were grossly negligent in failing to investigate and verify Valerie’s accusations against her parents before seeking the Dicks’ confinement, and that Hunter and Ruppert acted in willful disregard of the Dicks’ constitutional rights. Defendant William Schutt, who was the supervisor of the Tri-County Human Services Department, an agency of the Tri-County Board, but who did not participate in the procurement of the arrest and confinement orders, was accused of failing to properly train and supervise Hunter and Ruppert. County liability was predicated on the claim that the individual defendants acted in accordance with a custom or policy of the county. The jury found that Alexander and Irene Dick had been deprived of their liberty without due process of law and that the acts and omissions of the individual defendants were a proximate cause of that deprivation. The jury further found that Schutt had failed to properly train or supervise Hunter and Ruppert and that his failure was part of a custom or policy of the TriCounty Board. The jury was not asked to decide whether Hunter’s and Ruppert’s acts and omissions were in accordance with county custom or policy because the Court ruled as a matter of law during the trial, based upon the testimony of defendant Schutt, that Hunter’s and Ruppert’s actions in seeking to initiate commitment proceedings against the Dicks based on unverified information from a minor child were in accordance with a county policy established by Schutt. On the issue of the individual defendants’ qualified immunity, the jury found that Schutt had acted in good faith but that Hunter and Ruppert had not. The jury awarded Alexander and Irene Dick each $500,000 in compensatory damages, and assessed punitive damages against Schutt in the amount of $2,000 and against Hunter and Ruppert each in the amount of $5,000. MINNESOTA JUDICIAL COMMITMENT LAW The Dicks’ arrest and confinement was carried out under color of the Minnesota Judicial Commitment statute, Minn.Stat. § 253A.07, subd. 3 (1980), repealed by Minnesota Commitment Act of 1982,1982 Minn. Laws ch. 581 (codified at Minn.Stat. §§ 253B.01-253B.23 (1982)). This law, which was repealed in 1982, authorized the temporary commitment of “inebriate persons” without a hearing. “Inebriate person” was defined by the statute as follows: “Inebriate person” means any person determined as being incapable of managing himself or his affairs by reason of the habitual and excessive use of intoxicating liquors, narcotics, or other drugs. For the purpose of involuntary commitment of a person as inebriate it is necessary for the court to find: (a) that the person is an inebriate person, and (b) that involuntary hospitalization is necessary for the welfare of the person or the protection of society .... Minn.Stat. § 253A.02, subd. 4. Minn.Stat. § 253A.07, subd. 1, set out the petitioning procedures to be followed for the initiation of commitment proceedings against an individual: Any interested person may file in the probate court of the county of the proposed patient’s settlement or presence a petition for commitment of a proposed patient, setting forth the name and address of the proposed patient, the name and address of his nearest relatives, and the reasons for the petition. Such petition shall be accompanied either by a written statement by a licensed physician stating that he has examined the proposed patient and is of the opinion that the proposed patient may be mentally ill, mentally deficient, or inebriate, and should be hospitalized, or by a written statement by the petitioner that, after reasonable effort, the petitioner has been unable to obtain an examination by a licensed physician or that an examination could not be performed. Before filing, a copy of the petition shall be delivered by the petitioner to the designated agency. Ordinarily, after the filing of a petition, the probate court would appoint qualified examiners to conduct an examination of the patient, prior to any confinement, and to submit a report to the court. Minn.Stat. § 253A.07, subd. 2. The court would also require the county welfare agency to investigate the proposed patient’s family and financial background and report to the court. Minn.Stat. § 253A.07, subd. 7. Finally, the proposed patient, represented by counsel, would be given a hearing to determine whether he or she could be committed. Minn.Stat. § 253A.07, subd. 8. Under certain limited circumstances, however, the statute allowed a probate judge to forego these procedural safeguards and to issue a temporary hold order directing a health or peace officer to take the proposed patient into custody and to confine the patient in a hospital: The court may direct a health or peace officer or any other person to take the proposed patient into custody and transport him to a public hospital, private hospital consenting to receive him, public health facility, or other institution, for observation, evaluation, diagnosis, emergency treatment, care, and if necessary, confinement. The order of the court may be executed on any day and at any time thereof, by the use of all necessary means including the breaking open of any place in which the proposed patient is located and the imposition of necessary restraint upon the person of such proposed patient. Unless otherwise ordered by the court, a peace officer taking the proposed patient into custody pursuant to this subdivision shall not be in uniform and shall not use a motor vehicle visibly marked as a police vehicle. Minn.Stat. § 253A.07, subd. 3. This procedure was used to confine the Dicks. The limited circumstances under which a probate judge could issue a hold order were set out by the Minnesota Supreme Court just six months prior to the Dicks’ confinement. In State ex rel. Doe v. Madonna, 295 N.W.2d 356 (Minn.1980), the plaintiff, suing on behalf of alleged mentally ill persons confined pursuant to hold orders, challenged the Minnesota Judicial Commitment statute on due process grounds. The court found that the statute had been unconstitutionally applied to the named plaintiffs because they had not received a hearing within 72 hours after being confined. But the court struggled to uphold the facial constitutionality of the statute by implying two requirements. First, the court required that the probate court make a finding of “probable dangerousness” before issuing a hold order. Madonna, 295 N.W.2d at 363. Second, the court required that an individual confined pursuant to a hold order be given a hearing within 72 hours rather than 5 to 44 days as provided in the statute. Madonna, 295 N.W.2d at 365. The Supreme Court was also careful to point out that the agency involved in Madonna, the Hennepin County Welfare Department, uses a “complex, careful screening procedure ... which corroborates the information on petitions where possible and explores all reasonable alternatives to commitment.” Madonna, 295 N.W.2d at 362 n. 8; cf. Welsch v. Likins, 373 F.Supp. 487, 502 (D.Minn.1974) (due process requires that state officials make good faith effort to place civilly committed persons in appropriate settings least restrictive of their liberties). The Dicks did not challenge the facial validity of Minnesota’s Judicial Commitment statute, and, in fact, the jury was instructed that the statute, if followed, satisfied due process requirements. Court’s Instruction No. 17. The central issues at trial were whether the individual defendants complied with the statute and whether their actions in seeking the Dicks’ confinement were reasonable. Measured against the procedures mandated or contemplated in Madonna, the procedures used by Hunter and Ruppert were woefully inadequate. In addition to failing to investigate Valerie’s accusations against her parents and failing to consider customary alternatives to confining the Dicks, such as arranging a noncustodial alcohol confrontation session, defendants Hunter and Ruppert did not comply with the judicial commitment statute in one important respect. The statute required the petitioning party to file either a written statement by a licensed physician giving the physician’s opinion that the proposed patient is inebriate or a written statement that the petitioner “after reasonable effort” could not obtain an examination by a physician. Minn.Stat. § 253A.07, subd. 1. The defendants did not obtain physician’s statements. Instead, both commitment petitions state that “Petitioner is unable to procure a physician’s statement because Petitioner is unaware of any physician who is sufficiently knowledgeable with the drinking habits of the patient.” But, as the testimony at trial revealed, the defendants’ only effort to determine the name of the Dicks’ physician consisted of asking Valerie who told them she did not know. They did not attempt to contact the Dicks’ adult daughter, Irene Young, to see if she could provide the physician’s name. Even if the defendants could not have located the Dicks’ personal physician, they could have attempted to have the Dicks examined by a different physician. The defendants rejected this possibility, however, because they wanted to obtain hold orders in time to prevent the Dicks from attending the Christmas party that evening. Hunter’s and Ruppert’s failure to make a reasonable effort to obtain physician’s statements as required by the statute was a serious omission which contributed greatly to the Dicks’ wrongful confinement. Given the statutory definition of inebriacy — an inability to manage oneself or one’s affairs, Minn.Stat. § 253A.02, subd. 4 — it is extremely unlikely that a physician, after examining the Dicks in person, would have concluded that they were inebriates in need of hospitalization. Both of the Dicks were employed at the time — Alexander Dick as a precision instrument engraver and Irene Dick as a nurse’s aide. Both had excellent work records with no problem of absenteeism that might suggest an alcohol problem. At the very least, an examination by a physician would have given the Dicks notice of the accusations against them and an opportunity to respond to the numerous inaccuracies contained in the commitment petitions. The defendants’ failure to comply with the judicial commitment statute, failure to investigate and verify Valerie’s accusations, and failure to consider alternatives to immediate confinement resulted in the Dicks’ incarceration in detoxification centers. In the unanimous judgment of the jury, the defendants’ actions and omissions were unreasonable and deprived the Dicks of their constitutional rights. DISCUSSION A. Motion to Amend the Judgment The first issue before the Court is defendant Watonwan County’s motion to amend the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to eliminate the liability of Watonwan County. It is important to distinguish between the two governmental defendants in this case— Watonwan County and the Tri-County Board. The Tri-County Board is an entity created by a contract among Watonwan, Faribault, and Martin counties pursuant to the Minnesota Human Services Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 402.01 — 402.10 (1980). That statute permits one or more contiguous counties to designate a human services board to provide welfare, corrections, and other social services for the participating county or counties. Minn.Stat. §§ 402.01, subd. 1, 402.02, subd. 2(d). The Tri-County Board operates the Tri-County Human Services Department, of which defendant Schutt was the supervisor during the period in question. Watonwan County is the county of the plaintiffs’ residence and the county in which the Tri-County Human Services Department is located. Schutt, Hunter, and Ruppert provided social services only within Watonwan County. The issue of Watonwan County’s liability was not submitted to the jury because the Court ruled during the trial that Watonwan County would be liable, as a matter of law, for any liability incurred by the Tri-County Board. The issue of the Tri-County Board’s liability for the acts and omissions of defendant Schutt was submitted to the jury, and the jury found the board liable on the basis of the existence of a governmental policy or custom. See Special Verdict Answer 3.C. The Tri-County Board is also liable for the acts and omissions of defendants Hunter and Ruppert because the Court ruled during the trial that Hunter and Ruppert acted in accordance with a policy of the Tri-County Board. See part B.3. infra. Watonwan County now renews its contention that the individual defendants, Schutt, Hunter, and Ruppert were all employees of the Tri-County Board, not of Watonwan County, that the two entities are legally distinct, and that the county therefore can incur no liability for the acts or omissions of the Tri-County Board’s personnel. Several facts are relevant in evaluating the county’s argument. The plaintiffs' initial and amended complaints both named the “Watonwan County Welfare Department” as a defendant, not the Tri-County Board. The Tri-County Board answered in the name of the Watonwan County Welfare Department and its pretrial motion briefs consistently used that designation. Prior to trial, the Tri-County Board never denied that Schutt, Hunter, and Ruppert were employees of Watonwan County. At the outset of the trial, it became clear that the proper name of the agency was the TriCounty Human Services Board and the case name and special verdict form were duly amended to reflect that fact. However, the Court never departed from its earlier ruling that Watonwan County is liable for any liability incurred by the Tri-County Board and declines to do so now. The Court is convinced that, by authorizing contiguous counties to pool their resources in the formation of human services boards, the Minnesota Legislature never intended to absolve the participating counties of liability for wrongs committed by such boards or by their personnel. This conclusion is based on several considerations. The Human Services Act consistently refers to the authority granted to contiguous counties to “designate” a human services board. Minn.Stat. §§ 402.01, subd. 1, 402.-01, subd. 3. The use of the word “designate” rather than “create” or “establish” strongly suggests that while counties may agree to delegate their social services functions to a human services board, the board does not thereby become a wholly separate entity. To the contrary, the statute ensures that firm connections between the participating counties and the board will be maintained. The human services board is funded exclusively by the counties, Minn.Stat. § 402.02, subd. 3, and the county commissioners of each participating county must approve the board’s budget, Minn.Stat. § 402.065. At least one county commissioner from each participating county must sit on the board. Minn.Stat. § 402.02, subd. 1(a). In the instant case, the document setting up the Tri-County Board goes a step further and provides for review of “[a]ll policy, administrative, staffing and budgetary decisions of the [Tri-County] Board” by the boards of commissioners of the participating counties. Tri-County Human Services Board exhibit Q at 3. Significantly, in the situation where a single county designates a human services board, the statute provides that the county’s own board of commissioners may assume the powers and duties of the human services board. Minn.Stat. § 402.02, subd. la. In such a case, the county clearly would be liable for the wrongs of its human services board (provided, of course, that the requisite custom or policy were shown) since there would be an identity between the county board and the human services board. In the present situation where the relationship between Watonwan County and the Tri-County Board is only slightly more attenuated, the Court sees no reason to disturb its previous ruling that Watonwan County is jointly liable for any liability incurred by the Tri-County Board. B. Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict The standard for granting a motion for entry of judgment notwithstanding the verdict is extremely exacting. Such a motion can be granted “ ‘only where the evidence points all one way and is susceptible of no reasonable inferences sustaining the position of the nonmoving party.’ ” Kayser v. Rockwell Graphic Systems, Inc., 666 F.2d 1233, 1235 (8th Cir.1982), quoting Giordano v. Lee, 434 F.2d 1227, 1231 (8th Cir.1970) (emphasis in-original). The trial court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and must assume that the jury resolved all conflicts in the evidence in favor of the prevailing party. Harris v. Pirch, 677 F.2d 681, 683 (8th Cir.1982). If reasonable minds could differ as to the conclusion to be drawn from the evidence, the court must deny the motion. Harris, 677 F.2d at 683. Procedurally, a party must have moved for a directed verdict at the close of all the evidence in order to bring a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and no grounds not raised in the directed verdict motion may be raised in the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Johnson v. Rogers, 621 F.2d 300, 305 (8th Cir.1980). All of the defendants have moved for entry of judgment notwithstanding the verdiet raising a variety of grounds. These grounds will be considered separately. • 1. Deprivation of constitutional rights. The defendants’ first attack on the judgment consists of the argument that the Dicks’ confinement did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation because the defendants complied with the judicial commitment law and obtained court orders authorizing the confinement. The jury was instructed that “the Minnesota law applicable in this case [i.e., the Minnesota Judicial Commitment statute, Minn.Stat. § 253A.07 (1980) (repealed 1982)], if followed, meets the requirements of the United States Constitution.” Court’s Instruction No. 17. Therefore, the first issue is whether the defendants followed the law. The Court has already discussed the defendants’ noncompliance with the judicial commitment law. Hunter and Ruppert did not procure, nor did they make a reasonable effort to procure, physician’s statements as required by law. Minn.Stat. § 253A.07, subd. 1. They also did not investigate Valerie’s accusations against her parents even though they knew that Valerie’s desire to be placed in foster care gave her a motive to exaggerate, or consider alternatives to confinement as contemplated in State ex rel. Doe v. Madonna, 295 N.W.2d 356, 362 n. 8. As detailed above, Hunter and Ruppert’s failure to make any attempt to procure physician’s statements combined with their overzealous effort to obtain hold orders in time to prevent the Dicks from attending the Christmas party resulted in the Dicks’ wrongful confinement. The Court finds no merit in Hunter and Ruppert’s defense that they fully complied with the judicial commitment law. Relying upon the United States Supreme Court's decision in Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 99 S.Ct. 2689, 61 L.Ed.2d 433 (1979), the defendants next argue that there can be no deprivation of constitutional rights where a confinement results from a court order. In Baker, the respondent Linnie McCollan had been arrested pursuant to a facially valid warrant and confined in a county jail for several days despite his continued protestations of mistaken identity. In fact, the warrant was intended not for Linnie, but for his brother Leonard. However, the warrant bore Linnie’s name because Leonard had previously been arrested while masquerading as Linnie and had shown the police an altered driver’s license bearing Linnie’s name. Not until Linnie had been confined in county jail for several days did the defendant Sheriff Baker finally compare Linnie’s appearance with a file photograph and fingerprints of the wanted person, and, recognizing the error, authorize Linnie’s release. McCollan brought suit against the sheriff and his surety under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court directed a verdict for the defendants, but the court of appeals reversed. In a split decision, the Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, holding that McCollan had not been deprived of any constitutional right by the actions or omissions of the sheriff. Justice Rehnquist’s opinion stated: [W]e do not think a sheriff executing an arrest warrant is required by the Constitution to investigate independently every claim of innocence, whether the claim is based on mistaken identity or a defense such as lack of requisite intent. Nor is the official charged with maintaining custody of the accused named in the warrant required by the Constitution to perform an error-free investigation of such a claim. Baker, 443 U.S. at 145-146, 99 S.Ct. at 2694-2695; accord Johnson v. City of St. Paul, 634 F.2d 1146 (8th Cir.1980). In short, the Court held that since all of the sheriff’s acts or omissions were in reliance on a facially valid court order, the sheriff could incur no liability for McCollan’s wrongful confinement. The defendants in this case seize upon language in Baker which, according to their analysis, bars a section 1983 action for any deprivation of liberty resulting from a facially valid court order. In dictum Justice Rehnquist stated with reference to McCollan’s confinement: Whatever claims this situation might give rise to under state tort law, we think it gives rise to no claim under the United States Constitution. Respondent was indeed deprived of his liberty for a period of days, but it was pursuant to a warrant conforming, for purposes of our decision, to the requirements of the Fourth Amendment. 443 U.S. at 144, 99 S.Ct. at 2694 (dictum). The defendants contend that since court orders authorized the Dicks’ confinement, the Dicks suffered no deprivation of their constitutional rights under Baker. The Court does not read Baker so broadly. Rather, Baker must be limited to its particular facts — facts which are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the instant case. In Baker, the only claimed wrongdoing related to acts and omissions of the sheriff occurring after the issuance of the arrest warrant. The sheriff relied on the existence of the court order in failing to promptly investigate McCollan’s assertions of innocence. This reliance shielded the sheriff from section 1983 liability. The sheriffs reliance on an existing court order contrasts sharply with the defendants’ roles in this case. Hunter and Ruppert did not rely on an existing warrant, but actively sought to procure orders for the Dicks’ confinement without a reasonable basis for doing so, failed to comply with the judicial commitment law, and irresponsibly caused inaccurate and highly prejudicial information to be put before the reviewing judge. In cases involving active procurement of various types of court orders as opposed to mere reliance on existing orders, courts both before and since Baker have had no difficulty sustaining claims against defendants under section 1983. Baskin v. Parker, 602 F.2d 1205, 1208 (5th Cir.1979) (search warrant); Guerro v. Mulhearn, 498 F.2d 1249, 1256 (1st Cir.1974) (wiretap order); Farmer v. Lawson, 510 F.Supp. 91, 95-96 (N.D.Ga.1981) (search warrant). In cases involving arrest warrants, several courts have suggested that Baker is inapplicable when the plaintiff claims wrongdoing in the procurement of the warrant. Johnson v. Miller, 680 F.2d 39, 42 (7th Cir.1982) (dictum); Whitley v. Seibel, 613 F.2d 682, 686 (7th Cir.1980), cert. denied,-U.S.-, 103 S.Ct. 254, 74 L.Ed.2d 198 (1982); cf. Rodriguez v. Ritchey, 556 F.2d 1185, 1195 (5th Cir.1977) (Hill, J., concurring) (pre-Baker opinion), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1047, 98 S.Ct. 894, 54 L.Ed.2d 799 (1978). Thus, Baker does not control this case. The Court’s conclusion that Baker does not preclude a section 1983 cause of action based on official misconduct in the procurement of a confinement order is reinforced by Justice Blaekmun’s concurrence in Baker. Justice Blackmun noted that the result in Baker might have been different if the conduct of the defendant had risen to the level that “shocks the conscience” or is otherwise “offensive to the concept of ordered liberty.” 443 U.S. at 147, 99 S.Ct. at 2696 (Blackmun, J., concurring) (citations omitted). The quoted phrases perfectly describe the defendants’ conduct toward the Dicks. The defendants’ shocking disregard of the Dicks’ civil rights was revealed by the defendants’ own testimony as well as the testimony of others, and is no doubt reflected in the size of the jury’s award. For example, Ruppert testified that he saw no harm in confining the Dicks for three days because “[t]heir story would be brought out at the hearing.” He also told Valerie that committing her parents might be “the best Christmas present” she could give them. Few things could be more offensive to the concept of ordered liberty than the incarceration of two law-abiding citizens for three days based on nothing more than the unverified and inaccurate allegations of a child barely 15 years old. Finally, to read Baker as broadly as the defendants request would be to deny victims of the most egregious official misconduct access to a federal forum any time the misconduct culminated in a court order. But it is precisely in such cases that access to the federal courts is most needed. “The very purpose of § 1983 was to interpose the federal courts between the States and the people, as guardians of the people’s federal rights — to protect the people from unconstitutional action under color of state law, ‘whether that action be executive, legislative, or judicial.’ ” Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U.S. 225, 242, 92 S.Ct. 2151, 2162, 32 L.Ed.2d 705 (1972). “In determining whether or not a specific invasion is of a constitutional magnitude, it is ... appropriate to consider whether the actions of the officials causing that invasion are the type over which federal supervision is needed .... ” Henry v. City of Minneapolis, 512 F.Supp. 293, 297 (D.Minn.1981). “ ‘Where the States have reasonably effective safeguards or remedies, a restrictive reading of the [Civil Rights] Acts is called for.’ ” Id., quoting Sami v. United States,- 617 F.2d 755, 773 (D.C.Cir.1979). In this case, it is clear that the Tri-County Board did not have in place at the time of the Dicks’ commitment “reasonably effective safeguards” against erroneous confinement. In fact, the custom and policy of the Tri-County Board was to permit its employees to seek the involuntary commitment of individuals based solely on the unverified accusations of a minor child. See part B.3. infra. Consequently, section 1983 must be construed broadly in order to redress the wrong suffered by the Dicks. For all of these reasons, the Court rejects the defendants’ argument that the Dicks were not deprived of their constitutional rights. 2. Proximate cause. Given that the Dicks did suffer a violation of their constitutional rights, the next issue is whether the defendants proximately caused that violation. The jury specifically found that the acts and omissions of each of the individual defendants proximately caused the violation of the Dicks’ constitutional rights. The defendants now contend that the court orders, not the acts and omissions of Hunter and Ruppert, were the proximate cause of the violation. Further, they maintain that Hunter’s and Ruppert’s consultation with County Attorney Birkholz broke the chain of causation. Sound reasons exist for not disturbing the jury’s express finding that the individual defendants proximately caused the violation of the Dicks’ constitutional rights. The most important consideration is the jury’s determination that Hunter and Ruppert did not act in good faith. This finding was amply supported by evidence in the record including Hunter’s and Ruppert’s own admissions of their failure to make a single attempt to verify any of Valerie’s accusations, testimony regarding Hunter’s and Ruppert’s failure to comply with the judicial commitment law, and testimony concerning Hunter’s, Ruppert’s, and Birkholz’ eagerness to have the Dicks confined in order to prevent them from attending the Christmas party. The shocking and reckless disregard of the Dicks’ constitutional rights which marked the defendants’ conduct, fully justified the jury’s finding that Hunter and Ruppert acted in bad faith. Where public officials act in bad faith and in reckless disregard of individuals’ constitutional rights, this Court is unwilling to allow them to escape liability on the theory that higher officials ratified their conduct. In the leading case on proximate causation in civil rights cases, Rodriguez v. Ritchey, 556 F.2d 1185 (5th Cir.1977) (en banc), eight of fourteen judges sitting en banc rejected the argument that an officer who “maliciously or in bad faith seek[s] to obtain an indictment from a grand jury” is insulated from liability. 556 F.2d at 1195 (Hill, J., concurring). Indeed, six of those judges felt that even an officer acting in subjective good faith could still be liable if his or her conduct was not within the “bounds of reason.” 556 F.2d at 1207 (Goldberg, J., dissenting). This latter view appears to be the rule embodied in Minnesota tort law. Survis v. A.Y. McDonald Mfg. Co., 224 Minn. 479, 496, 28 N.W.2d 720, 729 (1947) (complainant must use “due diligence” to discover evidence before initiating judicial proceedings against an individual); Jones v. Flaherty, 139 Minn. 97, 99, 165 N.W. 963, 964 (1917) (complainant must use “reasonable diligence”); see also W. Prosser, The Law of Torts, 843-44 (4th ed. 1971). Under either of these standards— maliciousness or unreasonableness — Hunter’s and Ruppert’s irresponsible behavior fully supports the jury’s findings of liability* The defendants’ contention that they did not proximately cause the violation of the Dicks’ constitutional rights is defective for another reason as well. While some courts have held that an officer who obtains an arrest warrant for an individual cannot be held liable if the decision to issue the warrant is made by an intermediary agent such as a prosecutor, grand jury, or judge, that defense applies only if the intermediary agent exercises reasonable “independent judgment.” Smiddy v. Varney, 665 F.2d 261, 266-67 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 65, 74 L.Ed.2d 66 (1982); Dellums v. Powell, 566 F.2d 167, 192-93 (D.C.Cir.1977), cert. denied, 438 U.S. 916, 98 S.Ct. 3146, 57 L.Ed.2d 1161 (1978); see Ames v. United States, 600 F.2d 183, 185 (8th Cir.1979). But see Smith v. Gonzales, 670 F.2d 522, 526 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,-U.S.-, 103 S.Ct. 361, 74 L.Ed.2d 397 (1982) (officer is not liable even if, by wrongful means, he or she taints the independent judgment of the intermediary agent). In this case, neither County Attorney Birkholz nor Judge Teigum exercised the type of independent judgment necessary to insulate the defendants from liability. Hunter’s and Ruppert’s conversations with Birkholz did not break the chain of causation because Birkholz himself testified in his deposition that the decision to seek the Dicks’ confinement was made jointly with Hunter and Ruppert. Moreover, evidence in the record suggests that Birkholz, as well as Hunter and Ruppert, did not act in good faith. Particularly indicative of Birkholz’ state of mind is a conversation he had in March of 1981 with Norbert Smith, an attorney then representing the Dicks. Smith testified that, in response to a question by Smith asking why the Dicks had been put in detoxification centers when they had not been drinking, Birkholz replied that the Dicks “would have gotten drunk [that night] anyway, and .. . this was basically a way to save time and effort.” Statements of this nature do not evince the type of independent prosecutorial judgment which must be present in order to break the causal chain. The Court also finds that Judge Teigum’s orders, given the circumstances under which they were procured, did not break the causal chain. It is important to emphasize that there was no hearing at which the Judge could look behind the petitions or assess the credibility of witnesses. In addition, hold orders apparently were issued rather routinely in Watonwan County during the time period in question. Both Birkholz and Schutt testified that they could not recall a single instance in which a petition for commitment was denied. However, the key consideration is the manner in which Hunter and Ruppert obtained the hold orders. The Eighth Circuit has ruled in Ames v. United States, 600 F.2d 183, 185 (8th Cir. 1979), that situations involving “the presentation of false evidence or the withholding of evidence” are exceptions to the general rule that a grand jury indictment, or as in this case, a court order, breaks the chain of causation. See also Restatement (Second) of Torts § 653 (1977); W. Prosser, The Law of Torts, 836-37 (4th ed. 1971). Both of these elements are present here. Judge Teigum had no information available to him other than that contained in the commitment petitions signed under oath by Hunter. But, as detailed above, the petitions contained glaring inaccuracies, including the false statement that Irene Dick, while wielding a knife, had recently threatened to murder her husband. This inaccuracy was especially damaging since the Judge was required to make a finding of “probable dangerousness” before ordering the Dicks confined. Of all the statements contained in the petitions, the murder threat is by far the most suggestive of dangerousness. While Hunter and Ruppert may not have known that this statement was false, Ames does not expressly require such knowledge. At a minimum, Hunter and Ruppert acted in reckless disregard of whether the statement was true or false. They relied solely on a secondhand account reported by a child barely 15 years old and who they knew had a motive to exaggerate. Even though they could have easily discovered the statement’s falsity simply by checking with Renee Snyder, one of their own co-workers, they made no attempt to do so. Hunter and Ruppert were also guilty of withholding evidence in the sense that, although they had a legal duty to make at least a reasonable effort to obtain physician’s statements — statements which, if obtained, almost certainly would have exonerated the Dicks — they failed to make any effort to procure the statements beyond asking Valerie if she knew the name of her parents’ physician. This case presents the type of situation to which the court in Hoffman v. Halden, 268 F.2d 280, 297 (9th Cir.1959), was referring when it stated: We are not saying that there could not be situations where a judge was so deceived and hoodwinked by proceedings brought before him that certain of these preliminary acts might not raise themselves to the status of a proximate cause of an injury, notwithstanding the intervening order of the court. There might be situations where the action of the court became in substance, merely a conduit for the wrongful action which preceded. (Footnote omitted). In light of the reckless manner in which Hunter and Ruppert in bad faith obtained the hold orders, the Court concludes that the orders were “merely a conduit” for the defendants’ wrongful behavior. Under these circumstances, the existence of court orders does not absolve Hunter and Ruppert from liability. Public officials who act in bad faith cannot be allowed to escape liability on the theory that higher officials ratified their conduct. Sanctioning such a defense would be an invitation to anarchy. In this case, the jury properly concluded that the defendants proximately caused the violation of the Dicks’ constitutional rights. 3. Custom or policy. Watonwan County’s and the TriCounty Board’s next argument in support of their motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is that the acts and omissions of the individual defendants Schutt, Hunter, and Ruppert were not done pursuant to a governmental custom or policy, and that entry of judgment against the county and the Tri-County Board is therefore precluded by Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 694, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 2037, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). Two separate routes to municipal liability are present in this case. First, the conduct of Hunter and Ruppert in initiating commitment proceedings against the Dicks— conduct which the jury found proximately caused the violation of the Dicks’ constitutional rights — creates municipal liability if Hunter and Ruppert acted in accordance with a custom or policy of the' Tri-County Board. Second, Schutt’s failure to properly train and supervise Hunter and Ruppert, if that failure implemented Tri-County Board custom or policy, also creates municipal liability. The issue of municipal liability based on Hunter’s and Ruppert’s actions was not submitted to the jury because the Court ruled, as a matter of law, during the trial that Hunter’s and Ruppert’s conduct in seeking to initiate commitment proceedings against the Dicks based on unverified information from a minor child was in accordance with a policy of the Tri-County Board established by Schutt. This ruling was fully supported by evidence in the record. In fact, Schutt’s own testimony as to TriCounty Board policy compelled this ruling. Schutt, who was the supervisor of the TriCounty Human Services Department and who established the operating policies and procedures for the department testified as follows: Q Was it within the policy of the TriCounty Human Services Department for someone such as Jerry Ruppert and Deb Hunter, to get out a petition for an involuntary confinement of someone like Alexander and Irene Dick on nothing more than the word of a 15-year-old child? A It was within their authority to take the information to the county attorney, yes, information that they had. Q And seek confinement of the 15-year-old child’s parents? A If that was appropriate, yes. Q That was within the scope of procedures that you had established, was it not? A Yes. THE COURT: Were you the top official in this particular area that we are talking about here in the Tri-County group? THE WITNESS: In that particular area, yes. Q Mr. Schutt, wasn’t it left completely by yourself as a matter of policy, within the discretion of the individual worker, as to whether or not it was appropriate to consult with other adult kindred, such as, ' in this case, Homer and Irene Young— A Yes. Q —before getting out a petition for involuntary commitment of parents, such as Alexander and Irene Dick? A Yes. The defendants ask the Court to ignore Schutt’s own admissions concerning TriCounty Board policies — policies established by Schutt himself. Relying on Herrera v. Valentine, 653 F.2d 1220, 1224 (8th Cir. 1981), and Turpin v. Mailet, 619 F.2d 196, 202 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1016, 101 S.Ct. 577, 66 L.Ed.2d 475 (1980), the defendants contend that Watonwan County and the Tri-County Board can be held liable only if Schutt had notice of repeated prior misconduct by Hunter, Ruppert, or other employees of the Tri-County Human Services Board and failed to take remedial steps. They assert that a governmental policy or custom cannot be inferred from a single instance of official misconduct. The defendants’ argument, while accurately summarizing the holdings of Herrera and Turpin is irrelevant given the facts and circumstances of this case. Herrera and Turpin are applicable in cases in which direct evidence of governmental policy is lacking and it becomes necessary to infer an informal custom or policy based on the acts or omissions of high-ranking officials. See Turpin, 619 F.2d at 199. Here, in contrast, it was unnecessary to infer a custom or policy because Schutt described exactly what the policies of the Tri-County Board were. He also testified that he himself established those policies. Under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 694, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 2037, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978), a government’s policy or custom can be established either by “its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy.” As the supervisor of the Tri-County Human Services Department, Schutt had the authority to make policy for the department, and his acts and edicts are chargeable to the Tri-County Board and to Watonwan County. The policy under which Hunter and Ruppert acted was also the moving force behind the constitutional violation. If the TriCounty Board’s policy had required Hunter and Ruppert to undertake even a minimal investigation of Valerie’s accusations, the inaccuracies in her statements would have been exposed and the Dicks almost certainly would not have been taken away to detoxification centers on temporary hold orders. In summary, Schutt’s admissions concerning the existence of Tri-County Board policy removed any jury question as to municipal liability based on the acts of Hunter and Ruppert. The other route to municipal liability is through the conduct of Schutt himself. The jury found that Schutt had failed to properly supervise or train Hunter and Ruppert, that his failure was a proximate cause of the violation of the Dicks’ constitutional rights, but that Schutt had acted in good faith. Given Schutt’s qualified immunity, the jury’s finding that he acted in good faith shields him from personal liability. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, - U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738-39, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). However, the jury also determined that Schutt’s failure to properly supervise or train Hunter and Ruppert was part of a policy or custom of the Tri-County Board. Since a governmental unit cannot take advantage of the good faith immunity of its employees, Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622, 638, 100 S.Ct. 1398, 1409, 63 L.Ed.2d 673 (1980), this finding establishes a second and independent basis for liability of Watonwan County and the Tri-County Board. The defendants contest the jury’s findings concerning Schutt in several respects. First, they contend that there is insufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that Schutt failed to properly train or supervise Hunter and Ruppert. But Schutt’s own testimony, some of which is quoted above, reveals that Schutt gave his subordinates virtually unbridled discretion to seek the confinement of suspected inebriates even in the absence of reliable evidence of inebriacy and dangerousness. This is the sort of reckless failure to train that properly gives rise to supervisory liability. See Hays v. Jefferson County, 668 F.2d 869, 874 (6th Cir.), cert. denied,-U.S.-, 103 S.Ct. 75, 74 L.Ed.2d 73 (1982). Next the defendants assert that the jury’s findings concerning Schutt are inconsistent and must be vacated. In its answer to question 3.A. of the special verdict form, the jury found that Schutt had failed to properly supervise or train Hunter and Ruppert — a finding which the jury was instructed it could make only if it found that Schutt had deliberately or recklessly failed to train his subordinates. See Court’s Instruction No. 18. In its answer to question 4.A. on qualified immunity, the jury found that Schutt had acted in good faith. Although the jury’s answers at first blush appear inconsistent, it is the Court’s duty to harmonize them if reasonably possible. McIntyre v. Everest & Jennings, Inc., 575 F.2d 155, 157 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 864,99 S.Ct. 187, 58 L.Ed.2d 173 (1978). It appears that the jury properly applied the Court’s instructions regarding supervisory liability. As noted above, the jury’s implicit finding that Schutt acted recklessly in failing to properly supervise or train his subordinates was supported by the record. It also appears that, in considering the issue of Schutt’s qualified immunity, the jury applied a common sense understanding of the concept of “good faith” and found that Schutt, who did not participate in the confinement of the Dicks and who, in fact, had no contact with the Dicks prior to their confinement, did not act in bad faith vis-a-vis the Dicks. The Court does not find the jury’s answers to be “irreconcilably inconsistent.” McIntyre, 575 F.2d at 157. It is entirely possible for an individual to be reckless in establishing procedures which are likely to produce violations of constitutional rights while at the same time exhibiting no bad faith toward the ultimate victims of those unconstitutional procedures. Finally, the defendants argue that Schutt’s failure to supervise or train Hunter and Ruppert does not implicate a governmental custom or policy absent some notice to Schutt of prior misconduct by Hunter, Ruppert, or their fellow employees. However, in a case involving alleged failure to train the members of a police force, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently held: Where, as here, the constitutional violation was not alleged to be part of a pattern of past misconduct, a supervisory official or a municipality may be held liable only where there is essentially a complete failure to train the police force, or training that is so reckless or grossly negligent that future police misconduct is almost inevitable or would properly be characterized as substantially certain to result. Hays v. Jefferson County, 668 F.2d 869, 874 (6th Cir.), cert. denied,-U.S.-, 103 S.Ct. 75, 74 L.Ed.2d 73 (1982) (citations omitted). The policies and procedures established by Schutt, which allowed employees such as Hunter and Ruppert to seek to initiate commitment proceedings against individuals based on unverified statements of a minor child, is the type of reckless failure to train and supervise which is “substantially certain” to result, sooner or later, in the erroneous confinement of an individual in violation of that individual’s constitutional rights. Consequently, Watonwan County and the Tri-County Board are also liable under this second theory of municipal liability. 4. Qualified immunity. The individual defendants contend that the Court erred in not granting their motion for a directed verdict based on their defense of qualified immunity. This argument is without merit. Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense which must be pleaded and proved. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, - U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2737, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). In order to establish the defense, a defendant must prove that his or her conduct did not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow, 102 S.Ct. at 2738. Hunter and Ruppert failed to meet their burden, and the jury properly found that they did not act in good faith. The Dicks’ right not to be deprived of their liberty without due process of law was clearly established and a right of which any reasonable person would have known. Any reasonable person in Hunter and Ruppert's position would also have known of his or her duty to comply with the requirements of the judicial commitment law, as modified by State ex rel. Doe v. Madonna, 295 N.W.2d 356 (Minn.1980). Yet the defendants abused the law by failing to investigate Valerie’s accusations, failing to obtain physician’s statements, and failing to consider alternatives to confinement. Every parent with a teenage child will recognize that hyperbole is often used by the child in discussing the parent, and by the parent in discussing the child. Yet Hunter and Ruppert, professional social workers who by their own admission knew that Valerie had a motive to exaggerate, accepted the statements o