88 A.3d 1053
Pa. Commw. Ct.2014Background
- Schell, a Pennsylvania State Police trooper, was dismissed in 2009; Guth (sergeant, Criminal Investigations Section Supervisor) and Barrett (corporal, IAD) were also PSP troopers and investigated Schell’s conduct.
- Schell’s tort claims—malicious prosecution, defamation/false light, IIED, and negligence—arose from actions during criminal investigations, arrest, and internal investigations related to his interactions with two minors and an adult.
- Undisputed facts show Guth led criminal investigations into R.T. and J.S.; Barrett conducted IAD/internal investigations and reviewed the criminal transcripts.
- R.T. reported alleged inappropriate contact with Schell; Guth and others gathered statements, collected text messages, and pursued criminal charges approved by the District Attorney.
- J.S. reported past inappropriate contact with Schell; Guth conducted an interview and Barrett later examined the J.S. matter and worked with Guth.
- Schell was arrested in June 2007, prosecuted on R.T. and J.S. charges; most charges were dropped or resulted in acquittals; Barrett and Guth maintained investigations and reports.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Guth and Barrett acted within the scope of employment | Schell argues outside scope due to personal vendetta and improper conduct. | Guth and Barrett acted within PSP duties during investigations and arrests. | Yes; actions within scope; sovereign immunity applies. |
| Whether Barrett’s conduct is barred by sovereign immunity | Barrett’s role extended beyond internal investigations, affecting Schell’s rights. | Barrett was a passive observer aiding investigation; within scope. | Barrett’s acts are within scope; immunity bars claims. |
| Whether Guth’s actions could be outside scope due to asserted malice or personal motive | Guth filed charges despite exculpatory evidence and acted with malice. | Record shows probable cause; actions tied to law enforcement duties; no malice proven. | No basis to conclude outside scope; immunity stands. |
| Whether Schell’s negligence claim falls within a statutory exception to immunity | Negligence in use of force during arrest could be outside immunity. | Use of force during arrest falls within scope; no applicable exception. | Negligence claim not within 42 Pa.C.S. § 8522(b) exceptions; barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- La Frankie v. Miklich, 618 A.2d 1145 (Pa.Cmwlth.1992) (scope-of-employment test for sovereign immunity in Commonwealth cases)
- Sanchez v. Montanez, 165 Pa.Cmwlth. 381 (Pa.Cmwlth.1994) (conduct within scope: kind, time/space, purpose, unexpected force)
- Kull v. Guisse, 81 A.3d 148 (Pa.Cmwlth.2013) (nine exceptions to sovereign immunity; scope analysis framework)