the plaintiff being handcuffed. In short, on Ms. Borton’s version of facts (as opposed to Officer Schulmerich’s version), Officer Schulmerich’s argument that the use of force was de minimis in terms of both force and injury is unpersuasive. Finally, Officer Schulmerich argues that he was dispatched to SAMC in his role as a community caretaker and that, therefore, he did not need probable cause that Ms. Borton had committed a crime to “employ[] reasonable force necessary to control the situation.” (Defs. Summ. J. Br. 29-30); see, e.g., United States v. McGough, 412 F.3d 1232, 1233 (11th Cir. 2005) (assuming, without deciding, that there is a community caretaking exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement); see also Cannon v. State, 601 So.2d 1112, 1115 (Ala.Crim.App.1992) (<HOLDING>). Here, there are genuine issues of material
recognizing that the community caretaking exception is distinct from the emergency aid or emergency assistance exception to the fourth amendment warrant requirement recognizing that the community caretaking function as an exception and enunciating a test for its application recognizing that police perform a community caretaking function separate and apart from the enforcement of criminal statutes holding that section 63092 coexists with the traditional community caretaking functions of the police recognizing the community caretaking exception but holding it inapplicable to justify the police action at issue