378 P.3d 720
Ariz. Ct. App.2016Background
- In Sept 2005 Phoenix Police collected sexual-assault swabs from survivor A.L.; some swabs (including left-breast swabs) were not forwarded for immediate DNA profiling and initial testing was inconclusive.
- Bureau supervisor decided to wait for a suspect list before sending certain swabs to DPS for Y-STR testing (Bureau could not perform Y-STR in-house).
- Between Dec 2005 and May 2006 several women were murdered; police compiled a suspect list in Aug 2006 and DPS linked the left-breast swab DNA to Mark Goudeau on Sept 6, 2006; Goudeau was arrested the same day.
- Survivors and families of murder victims sued Phoenix and Bureau employees for gross negligence/wrongful death, alleging failure to perform or cross-check DNA testing caused delayed identification and arrest.
- The City moved for summary judgment asserting qualified immunity under A.R.S. § 12–820.02(A)(1) (no liability for failure to arrest absent intent or gross negligence) and argued no duty was owed; trial court granted summary judgment.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding no special-relationship or public-policy duty arose and the immunity statute applied such that plaintiffs could not prove gross negligence-based liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether City owed a duty (special relationship) to victims/families based on investigatory actions | Bureau’s testing and investigation of A.L. created an undertaking that gave rise to a duty to provide specific protection and identify the perpetrator sooner | Mere investigation or existence of police/lab does not create a special relationship or duty to individual victims absent specific protection promises or knowledge of a particular threat | No special relationship existed; no duty arose from Bureau’s ordinary investigative actions |
| Whether public policy or statutes (including local code) imposed a duty to avoid non-grossly negligent failure to arrest | Immunity statute and city code create an affirmative duty of care (non-grossly negligent investigation/arrest) | A.R.S. § 12–820.02(A)(1) provides immunity for failure to arrest (unless intent or gross negligence); city code states general responsibilities but does not impose an individual duty on employees | Public policy/statutes did not impose a duty; the immunity statute is a grant of protection, not a source of liability |
| Whether A.R.S. § 12–820.02(A)(1) barred negligence claims unless gross negligence proven | Plaintiffs asserted the claim was not merely a "failure to arrest" or that the statute should not shield the City here | City argued plaintiffs’ claims are essentially failures to arrest and thus subject to the qualified immunity; plaintiffs must show gross negligence to overcome immunity | Statute applies because claims are at core allegations of failure to arrest; plaintiffs failed to show gross negligence |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Scottsdale v. State, 237 Ariz. 467 (App. 2015) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Gipson v. Kasey, 214 Ariz. 141 (2007) (whether duty exists is a question of law)
- Walls v. Arizona Dep’t of Public Safety, 170 Ariz. 591 (App. 1991) (A.R.S. § 12–820.02 creates qualified immunity for failures to arrest)
- Greenwood v. State, 217 Ariz. 438 (App. 2008) (scope of immunity and application when claim is essentially failure to arrest)
- Austin v. City of Scottsdale, 140 Ariz. 579 (1984) (special-relationship duty arises when police undertake specific protection for known individual threat)
- Hutcherson v. City of Phoenix, 192 Ariz. 51 (1998) (duty can arise from police promise/undertaking, e.g., 911 assurances)
- Vasquez v. State, 220 Ariz. 304 (App. 2008) (rejects imposing insurer-like duties on police for all unsolved crimes)
- Guerra v. State, 237 Ariz. 183 (2015) (investigating a crime alone does not create a special relationship)