On Sept. 29, 2008, the plaintiff, an 11-year-old student at Sonora Elementary School, was placed in handcuffs by Chief of Police Mace McIntosh and Officer Hal Prock after they were contacted by the school. Karen Sinclair, an employee at the Sonora Elementary School had a school receptionist call the police to ask for assistance with an allegedly out-of-control student. The school verbally informed the officers that the child may attempt to run from them because he had a mood disorder and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, and had not taken medication that day. However, when they arrived at the scene, the officers found that the child was having a “shut down” episode, during which he froze in place and became unresponsive. As a result, Prock and McIntosh placed the boy in handcuffs and placed him in the backseat of a police car. The child, via his guardian ad litem, sued Sinclair; the school’s operator, the Sonora School District; Prock; McIntosh; and the police officers’ employer, the city of Sonora. The child’s guardian alleged that although the boy’s plan contained directions in the event of a “shut down,” the school district’s staff did not get in touch with the minor’s parents and, instead, called the police, in violation of the plan. The guardian also alleged that the officers’ actions constituted false arrest and excessive force in violation of the child’s Fourth Amendment rights. Sinclair and the school district settled the claims against them prior to trial. Thus, the matter proceeded to trial against Prock, McIntosh and the city only. The child claimed that the officers placed him in handcuffs merely to teach him a lesson about disobeying his teachers. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that the child was not accused of having a weapon, drugs or anything that would pose such a threat as to require handcuffs to be placed upon him, and that placing a child in handcuffs was not supported by probable cause. Counsel further noted that the incident took place on school grounds, on an athletic field, and that the child was not attempting to flee anywhere. Defense counsel contended that the officers were informed that the child had not taken his medication and might run from them. Counsel argued that as a result of the schools comments, the child’s lack of response, the school’s statement that the student couldn’t stay there, and the close proximity of the child’s father’s office, Prock and McIntosh took the boy into temporary custody and transported him to his father’s place of business. Thus, defense counsel argued that in light of school staff telling them that the child was out of control and had failed to take his medication, the officers took reasonable actions., The child claimed that he sustained to his wrists as a result of being handcuffed, as well as emotional distress from the incident. Thus, he sought recovery of damages for his pain and suffering and for the violation of his civil rights.