The Court (Kanne/Rovner/Wood, with Wood writing) holds that Kingsley‘s objective reasonableness standard applies to failure-to-protect claims brought by pretrial detainees. (Kemp now joins Hardeman, Miranda, and Kingsley to hold that objective reasonableness is really the standard for any type of claim brought by a pretrial detainee.) The Court has a fantastic discussion about what showing is required regarding the officer’s intent in such a claim, explaining that an officer must intend the conduct (i.e., an accidental Taser discharge is no constitutional violation) but there is no required showing that the officer intended/knew the conduct to be unconstitutional or cause harm. The point may seem obvious, but some early post-Miranda decisions from the Seventh Circuit suggested that there was a showing required that the defendant intended or knew of the consequences (i.e., the excessive/unconstitutional nature and/or the harm itself), which would be a higher bar than what’s required under even the Eighth Amendment. The Court also discusses the standards required to substantiate a claim for supervisory liability. Ultimately, however, the Court concludes the plaintiff in Kemp didn’t provide enough evidence to survive SJ and affirms the SJ decision.