Fales v. County of Stanton
297 Neb. 41
| Neb. | 2017Background
- At ~12:45 a.m., minors Bryant Irish (driver) and Dillon Fales (passenger) left a party after drinking. A Stanton County deputy, Michael Petersen, observed the pickup and began following it.
- Petersen activated emergency lights to initiate a traffic stop for a turn-signal violation (and possible speeding). The pickup accelerated instead of stopping.
- While fleeing, Fales threw an unopened 30-pack box of beer (and cans) out the window; Petersen observed beer on the road and radioed that occupants were "throwing out more Bud Light beverages."
- Petersen considered the throwing of beer as destruction of evidence and broadened his apprehension focus to include persons in the vehicle who might be concealing evidence. The pickup subsequently crashed; Fales was seriously injured.
- Fales sued the County under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 13-911 as an "innocent third party" injured by a vehicular pursuit; the district court found Fales was not an innocent third party and entered judgment for the County. Fales appealed; County cross-appealed on constitutional grounds but conceded the cross-appeal need not be reached if Fales is not an innocent third party.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fales was an "innocent third party" under § 13-911 | Fales argued throwing beer did not make him a target of the pursuit; at pursuit start passengers are often innocent third parties | County argued Fales’s act of discarding beer during the pursuit (observed by the deputy) made him a person sought to be apprehended, disqualifying him as an innocent third party | Court held Fales lost innocent-third-party status when he threw beer observed by the deputy and thus § 13-911 did not apply |
| Whether a passenger can lose innocent-third-party status during an ongoing pursuit | Fales: passenger status at pursuit start should remain unless officer specifically targets passenger | County: passenger may become a target if they take actions making them subject of apprehension during pursuit | Court held passenger can lose status during pursuit if they engage in conduct (e.g., destroying evidence) that reasonably makes them a person sought to be apprehended |
| Whether the district court’s factual findings were clearly erroneous | Fales: court relied on hypotheticals and officer did not actually see who threw beer, so findings are unsupported | County: radio traffic and deputy testimony support inference beer was thrown from vehicle and broadened apprehension | Court: factual findings not clearly erroneous; inference that occupants were throwing beer is supported by radio and testimony |
| Whether Court must decide County's constitutional challenge to § 13-911 | Fales: not directly relevant if he is an innocent third party | County: sought declaratory relief that § 13-911 unconstitutional | Court: because it affirmed on the innocent-third-party issue, it declined to reach the constitutional cross-appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Werner v. County of Platte, 284 Neb. 899 (distinguishing passenger knowledge and officer awareness of criminal conduct during pursuit)
- Henery v. City of Omaha, 263 Neb. 700 (statutory construction and definition of "innocent third party")
- Jura v. City of Omaha, 15 Neb. App. 390 (passenger in stolen vehicle held a person sought to be apprehended)
- Williams v. City of Omaha, 291 Neb. 403 (standard of review and evidentiary inferences in Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act cases)