city employee committed the alleged constitutional violation pursuant to a formal government policy or a longstanding practice or custom which constitutes the standard operating procedure of the local government entity. Second, the plaintiff may establish that the individual who committed the constitutional tort was an official with final policy-making authority and that the challenged action itself thus constituted an act of official government policy. Third, the plaintiff may prove that an official with final policy-making authority ratified a subordinate’s unconstitutional decision or action and the basis for it. Id. at 1083 (internal quotations and citations omitted). Harvey argues that deputy sheriffs committed the alleged constitutional violations pursuant t 2 CahRptr. 537 (1983) (<HOLDING>). The County does not, for purposes of the
holding under facts presented that probation officer was entitled to at least qualified immunity holding officer may search vehicle for weapons if officer has reasonable belief based on articulable facts that officer or another may be in danger holding that a reasonable officer could have believed there was probable cause to detain a person under section 5150 after she alluded to committing suicide despite her protest that the officer should have known the allusion was merely hyperbole holding officer did not violate fourth amendment by taking defendant into custody under  5150 where it was reasonable to infer from facts known to detaining officer that plaintiff was at least temporarily disordered and as a result of mental disorder was a danger to herself holding that taking an individual who was not suspected of any crime to a police station and into an interview room and detaining her for approximately four hours where it was made clear she was not free to leave violated the fourth amendment