*1 charac- Though the defendants it is un- punishment, the abuse terized knew that plaintiffs disputed acts the tortious some
least Any perceived harm occurred. caused plain- requiring rule of the
harshness interpret- diligence due to exercise
tiffs while occurred harm which
ing the lengthy is ameliorated minors were the limitations in commencement
delay age minors attained until
period
majority. applica- notes that opinion majority plain- allow rule would Wehling
tion summary judgment survive
tiffs to knowl- us what record before
that "[o0ln charged with based might be
edge each remains ordinary care exercise
upon the Op. at 1209. fact." question of disputed find, upon the un- based I would
However of some knew plaintiffs
disputed facts psy- knew of conduct the tortious be- problems well
chological and emotional subjective assertions 1990, that
fore of ordi- in the exercise they could nexus between
nary diligence discover insufficient damage are and the harm Accordingly, I would law. matter of as a summary denial of to reverse
vote
judgment. QUAKENBUSH, Samuel B.
Tricia Larry McAfee, Mac Medlin
Allen, Appellants-Plaintiffs, E. LACKEY
Florence Indianapolis, Appellees-
Defendants.
No. 49A04-9204-CV-113. Indiana, Appeals
Court District.
Fourth 14, 1992.
Dec.
1211 proached the intersection only headlights Medlin, Allen, on. and McAf- ee's claims were Quaken- consolidated with bush's claim they passengers were Quakenbush's vehicle at the time of the accident. The trial court found that: Hall, Greenwood, William D. Rog- Alex the uncontroverted facts of [UJnder ers, Indianapolis, appellants-plaintiffs. case, police officer, Defendant Flor- Oldham, Mary Ann Indianapolis, G. Lackey, was, ence in the words of our appellees-defendants. in City Wakarusa v. (1991),Ind., Holdeman 802, 582 N.E.2d [ CHEZEM, Judge. ], reh. denied involved in an '... the arrest of those Summary Case who have broken the law ...'. As Plaintiffs-Appellants, Quaken- Tricia - - such she was in the 'enforce- bush, McAfee, Medlin, Samuel Mac ment of a law' and entitled to law en- Larry (sometimes Allen collectively, "Ap- immunity forcement under the Indiana pellants"), appeal summary judgment Tort Claims Act. granted to Defendants-Appellees, Florence E. City Indianapolis (Lack- Discussion and Decision ey). We affirm. reviewing
When
summary
judgment,
the standard of review is whether there
Issue
genuine
was no
issue of material fact and
Whether
was entitled to sum-
moving
whether the
party was entitled to
mary judgment
upon immunity
based
un-
judgment as a matter of law. Ind.Rul.Tr.
der the Indiana Tort Claims Act.
Proc.,
56(C);
Rule
Co-op
Bureau
v.
Farm
Ind.App.,
(1987),
Deseret
Holding Corp.
Title
193,
denied;
13 N.E.2d
reh.
Facts and
Inter
History
Procedural
5
state Auction Inc. v. Central Nat'l. Ins.
Lackey, patrol
Indianap-
officer for the
(1983),
Group,
Ind.App.,
Inc.
448 N.E.2d
Department,
olis Police
dispatched
to a
1094, 1097. There are no issues of materi
report of a
beating
man
woman
present
al fact
by
error
the trial
lot.
driving
po-
a marked
court. We must decide
whether
car,
lice
going
to the disturbance at
immunity
entitled to
judg
and therefore
the time of the accident. Lackey crossed
ment as a matter of law.1
against
light
intersection
the red
when
Quakenbush's
her vehicle struck
vehicle.
employ-
Governmental
entities and their
Quakenbush
ees such as
subject
officers are
had entered the
intersection
green light.
on a
them,
had no red or
for torts committed
un-
lights
on,
flashing,
blue
no siren
no horn
activity giving
less the
rise to the tort falls
blowing,
spotlight
and no
shining.
ap-
exceptions
She
within the
enumerated in the
opinions
1. Our
unpublished authority
court vacated the
hibits the citation of
in a
-
Appeals
Court of
to the extent that
Appeals.
relate to
brief filed with the Indiana Court of
application
inappropriate
of the Indiana Tort Claims Act
We have held
to cite
and the issue
unpublished
opinions
for those
en
to the Court. Miller
(1991),
Brewing
force the law. Tittle v. Mahan
Company
Bloomington
v. Best Beers of
626, 633,
4,
(1991),
Ind.App.,
n.
reh.
796,
N.E.2d
801. We are limited
precedent
holdings
denied;
superseded by
(1986),
cases whose
Ind.App.,
are not
Qazi
Qazi
v.
holdings
denied,
Appellants
denied;
in Tittle v. Mahan.
filed a
N.E.2d
n. 2. reh.
trans.
Authority
(1983),
Gary
Motion for Additional
Ind.App.,
which cited to
Drake v.
1;
unpublished opinion
(1980),
Indiana Court of
N.E.2d
n. Warner v. State
971,973,
Ind.App.,
406N.E.2d
n. 8.
15(A)(3)
Appeals.
Appellate
pro
Indiana
Rule
during
high
car
798;
operating
Peavler
Act.
Id.
Tort Claims
suspect. Rath-
speed chase of a criminal
Comm'rs
County Bd.
Monroe
focusing, as the common law
remand,
er than
40, 42,
Ind., 528 N.E.2d
what,
any,
Lackey claims
if
required,
trans. denied.
violated,
for the
*3
duty had
the basis
been
the Tort
liability under
exception from
was,
en-
simply,
that an officer
ruling
Act:
Claims
is in fact
in
an arrest
gaged
act-
entity
employee
or
governmental
dispatched to a crime scene and granted immunity because there was no BAKER, J., concurring separate with criminal. identifiable Such is the case opinion. Lackey. dispatch for to indi person cated that there was an identifiable MILLER, J., dissenting separate with may opinion. who have broken the law and who was Only emergency onto another. To state that because she did not when to an situation, arrive at the scene means she was not needed ignores properly operating or when a De- reality the of the situation before the partmental pursuit vehicle under conditions Although hindsight provides accident. 20/20 may disregard an officer an automatic traffic vision, we cannot to be able to instances, expect signal stop sign. control or In both see into the future to determine whether however, approach the officer shall the inter- will, fact, be needed to secure an arrest. prepared stop. section with caution and be they accept Officers must assume that once may proceed only way The officer when the is dispatch, necessary it for them to arrive at the clear. scene. undisputed stop It is did not and (such yield right-of-way at the It that "a intersection. Lack- is well-settled statute as the Act) derogation ey lights Tort Claims which is in did and not have her sirens on at the against strictly common law must be construed time of the accident and she acted in violation right bring limitations on a claimant's suit." Departmental finding A of rules. 800; N.E.2d at Collier v. Prater scope employment did not act within the of for 498. Under a purposes immunity impute negli- of does not construction, canon of strict Lackey may gence controlling case, onto her. In such "the employment acted outside of the of her question becomes whether defendants owed Indianapolis Depart when violated private duty for the breach of which 8.00, V.C., ment General Order Section Wakarusa, permits recovery." law states: N.E.2d at 804. We do not consider this issue approaching 1. Police vehicles a red traffic parties. stipulations due to the of all Nonethe- signal sign stop stop yield shall less, departmental proto- an officer who follows right-of-way moving pedes- to all vehicles and likely negligently and col will most not behave within trians the intersection to those granted immunity requirements all should be if approaching in a manner which would cause for are satisfied. them to become a hazard. The vehicle operator may proceed only with caution when way is clear. ap four variations Although all concurring. BAKER, Judge, our su significance, equal of pear Judge Chezem result agree "activity to favor seems preme enforcing a Lackey was Florence
reaches.
phrase.
arrest"
effecting the
attendant
judgment
summary
is entitled
law
once,
only
appear
others, which
Unlike
immunity under
her
upon
based
again
appears
phrase
to"
"attendant
Act.1
Tort Claims
Indiana
City
again
still
City Wakarusa
of
Valparaiso.
acting within
police officer
losses
not liable
employment
Miller both
Judge Chezem
a law.
attempts"
lan-
resulting
"actual
on the
concentrate
This strikes
8$4-4-16.5-8(7). Our
Wakarusa.
guage
IND.CODE
reasons.
two
"enforce-
inappropriate
term
interpreted
me as
has
other
narrow
court's
only
First,
ignores
to include
a law"
ment of
"en-
interpreting
Specifically, variations;
the task
activity.
category
enough
is difficult
'en-
of a law"
term
forcement
within
included
"the activities
the "actu-
just
limiting ourselves
to those without
limited
a law'
[are]
forcement
told
have been
We
language.
attempts"
al
arrest
attendant
activities
effecting an
"activities
the law."
have broken
of those
surrounding the effect-
arrest," "activities
*5
Ind.,
N.E.2d
(1991),
582
Mahan
Tittle
in the
arrest,"
"activities
an
ing of
added).
(enphasis
796, 801
also
are
suspect"
a
apprehending
of
course
not
the arrest"
effecting
"Attendant
of
"enforcement
of
interpretations
correct
has used
court
supreme
the
only phrase
the
Second, "actu-
them?
ignore
law"-why
a
by "enforcement
meant
it
what
to describe
me
strikes
arrest"
an
to effect
attempts
al
context,
Act
Tort Claims
law"
four vari-
limiting of the
most
being the
case, City
companion
In Tittle's
however.
consid-
phraseology
the
When
ations.
Ind.,
(1991),
582
v. Holdeman
emerges
Wakarusa
picture
whole, a clearer
as a
ered
of
wrote
court
subject to
803,
supreme
our
will be
activities
N.E.2d
which
of
plaintiff
a
which
injuries for
the
"unless
immunity.
actual
out
recovery arose
seeks
of
not-con-
ought
least
at
cannot-or
We
one who
of
an arrest
attempts
effect
considering
also
without
language
sider
im-
law,
is no
have broken
arose,
phrase
each
in which
context
(Em-
8(7)."
in Section
found
munity
decide
ultimately we
added.)
phasis
"enforcing a
Lackey was
Florence
whether
Quacken-
with
collided
when
variations,
In addi
law"
too.
other
are
There
supreme
court
Tittle, our
In
effecting the ar
car.
bush
"attendant
tion to
in-
does
a law"
of
"enforcement
held
the words
uses
also
Tittle
phrase,
rest"
adminis-
with
associated
activities
clude
arrest,"
effecting of an
"surrounding
county
at a
detainees
pre-trial
of
tration
added), and
(emphasis
800
at
N.E.2d
582
Wakarusa, it decided
City
In
jail.
Sey
of
in
conclusion
its earlier
of
approves
an-
collided
vehicle
whose
officer
an
Ind.,
(1981),
v. State
Bank
National
mour
looking for
the officer
while
other
428
reh'g,
on
mod.
N.E.2d
422
required
without
vehicles
recreational
dismissed, 457 U.S.
203, appeal
N.E.2d
en-
registration
plates
license
1344
L.Ed.2d
1127, 102 S.Ct.
Valparaiso,
City
In
forcing a law.
of
meaning of 'enforce
plain
(1982), "that
leading a funeral
concluded
a law
of
activities
included
law'
a
ment of
enforcing a
engaged
procession
ap
course
law.
re
activity
suspect,
a
prehending
activi-
illustrate
cases
three
These
decision-
timing and
split second
quired
a law."
"enforcement
is not
ty that
(emphasis
Tittle,
supra,
making."
seq.
et
34-4-16.5-1
IND.CODE
of her employment and was en-
case, however,
There
in which
is one
our
did,
fact,
supreme
immunity forcing
find
she is immune from liabili-
ty
reason,
under the Act. For
In
Seymour
based on law enforcement.
concur
with the
result
Bank,
Chezem has
trooper operating
reached.
National
state
during
high speed
his cruiser
chase of a
Judge.
MILLER,
suspect
criminal
was found to be immune
effecting
because he was
I believe the majority-relying
super
law-ignores
seded case
the clear language
supreme
our
court.
Tittle v. Mahan
Here,
beating
a husband was
inwife
and City of
lot.2 Officer
was sum
(1991), Ind.,
Wakarusa v. Holdeman
moned. While
the call
court sharply lim
duty,
Quackenbush
she collided with the
ited the
of the law enforcement ex
merely performing
vehicle. She was not
ception to the Indiana Tort Claims Act
function,
generic police
routine and
as was
holding that
injuries
"unless the
for which
Wakarusa,
the case in
City
recovery
seeks
arose out of the
Instead,
City Valparaiso.
her situation
actual
to effect an arrest
...
high
is much more akin
speed
chase
there is no immunity to be found in Section
Bank,
Seymour
National
where an of 3(7)
the Tort Claims
[of
Act]."
ficer had notice of a crime and was re Wakarusa,
supra,
(emphasis
sponding.
trooper
If the
in Seymour was
In spite
mandate,
of this clear
majori-
effecting
chasing
an arrest
suspect,
while
ty affirms.
I would reverse and remand
held,
surely
as the
Officer
for trial.
minimum,
at a
an ar
FACTS
rest,
arrest,
surrounding an
in the course
*6
At
p.m.
about 11:24
on March
arrest, and,
apprehending
yes,
even
Indianapolis Police Officer Florence E.
actually attempting to effect an arrest
Lackey
fueling
was
her
car at 21st
sped
when she
to the victim's rescue.
and Sherman
when she heard the
[R. 183]
phrases,
Under each of
these
Officer
following radio traffic:
Lackey
plainly enforcing
was
the law. The
Dispatcher.
"B388 and
B3383 and
result is even clearer if we favor the "at-
disturbance,
domestic
Pi-
East
phrase,
tendant
to"
"attendant"
nehurst,
Drive,
Apart
South
Oaktree
accompanying thing
means "an
or circum-
beating
woman,
ments.
man
in the
stance;
consequence
or concomitant."
parking lot."
AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY
(Official
R. 58
Transcript
of Radio
(4th
OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE 85
Traffic).
B887,
radio call
decided
1969).
printing
Lackey
Officer
was re-
respond:
quired to
her
drive
vehicle to the scene
dispatcher"
"B837 to
stop
beating;
before she could
al-
Id.
though
driving
her
effecting
was not the
could,
acknowledged
Before she
unit B888
arrest,
certainly
was concomitant to
the call:
effecting an arrest.
I simply cannot es-
B333. "38th and Mitthoeffer"
mile
[One
cape the conclusion that an
driving
east of the location].
beating
of a
Id.
an Because
acting
Officer
was
within
The rest of the radio traffic is as follows:
woman,
register my disapproval
physically attacking
reprehensible
2.
I must also
beating
dissent's reference to the
as a
yet
"domestic
society.
all too common crime in our
There
is,
My colleague
unfortunately,
disturbance."
question
report
can
be no
of this crime
merely reciting
by
the moniker used
at
counsel
police response.
warranted an immediate
trial. Officer
was
ato man
litany shows
above
337-
covering.
are
"Units
Dispatcher.
therefore, nei-
and
law"
"enforcing the
run?"
for the
to volunteer
trying
you
are
responsible
are
employer
her
she nor
ther
apart-
me. What's
"It's on
B337.
disagree.
her actions.
for
again?"
number
ment
park-
in the
happening
"It's
Dispatcher.
DISCUSSION
infor-
refused
Complainant
lot.
ing
by
controlled
immunity is
Governmental
lot."
parking
mation,
in the
just
(Act).
gen
Act
Claims
Tort
the Indiana
interstate,
al
I'm on
"Okay,
337.
em
their
and
entities
eral, governmental
Post."
about
most
liability for torts
subject
are
ployees
(Information
[]
58.
Id.
activity giv
them,
unless
by
committed
excep
non-emergency
within
volunteering for this
falls
the tort
rise to
ing
After
avoiding a collision
Peavler
Act.
narrowly
enumerated
run and
tions
2
at 30th
light
reda
Post, Lackey ran
Bd.
Comm'rs
County
and
Monroe
vehicle,
At the time
42.
another
struck
and
Post
and
38th
two
herself,
driver
deter
had
enacted,3
courts
Indiana
hospitalizing
Act was
do
only
car
could
king
Her
other car.
mined
passengers
ac
held
could be
car sustained
also
wrong,
the other
but
much
demolished
Tittle, supra,
shows
The Record
wrongs.
such
damages
$2175.
countable
sovereign immuni
reached
doctrine
as she
The
Lackey testified
duty
been
had
Post,
private
see
could
ty for breaches
of 38th
intersection
decisions.
by judicial
the scene
already
virtually
abolished
[R.
(10) officers
ten
Id.
lot of-in
212-213], which
R. 255.
Bar."
"Go-Go
Lackey's words-a
enacting
responded
legislature
The
"Topless
aas
described
is also
This bar
created
judicially
limited
Act
driving at
Lackey was
at R.
Bar"
governmen-
from
recover
sue and
rights to
using
speed
rate
very high
Id.
employees.
and their
tal entities
horn,
siren,
lights,
roof
red/blue
sue,
in-
but
right
create
Act did
spotlights.
right
law
the common
stead, regulated
grant-
legislature
summary judgment
bring
actions.
such
moved
alia,
for,
inter
suit
immunity from
ed
suit.
immune
she was
claiming that
*7
failure
of or
enforcement
"adoption and
conclude
majority
and
courts
trial
Both
Department Policies
She violated
b.
miles
and a half
two
about
is
location
1. This
the collision.
time of
reported domes-
(2%)
west from
south
police car
testi-
in control
deposition,
was
c. She
In her
disturbance.
tic
Sherman,
actually
21st and
during
was at
time.
that
she
that
fied
I-70.
Post and
her.
west of
time for
miles
at the
light
five
was red
about
is
The
which
d:
Map
indicates
Indianapolis
happen-
it from
prevented
The
R. 183.
could
e. She
Sher-
21st
took
route
that
to assist
ing
was
she
officers
about
a distance
and Post
38th
man
distur-
a domestic
already
the scene
on
(7%)
Police
The
miles.
half
and one
seven
added.)
(Emphasis
bance.
shows
58-59]
[R.
Traffic
Transcript
Radio
149.
I,
Vol.
Tr.
p.
thirty-one
seconds
minutes
that
six
-
officers, con-
Lackey's fellow
experts, here
The
acknowledged
time
elapsed-between
non-emergency.
It
type
to be
of call
this
sider
reported
accident-
when she
run
response, but
requires an immediate
complete
she needed
the time
includes
recognizes that there
response-IPD
emergency
Sherman
21st and
fueling
vehicle
of her
colleagues
145-
my
to R.
I refer
a difference.
and unable
stunned
she was
time
guide,
operator's
148A,
vehicle
IPD
official
following
acci-
immediately
radio
reach
procedures.
IPD
dent.
seq.
et
LC. 34-4-16.5-1
version
The first
made,
3.
Board
Review
The Indianapolis
in
enacted
findings:
alia,
following
(1971).
version
current
The
inter
non-emergency
on
a. Officer
added).
(Emphasis
run. -
adopt or enforce a
supreme
by
law." Id. Our
implication."
(cita-
unmistakable
Id.
meaning
court
first addressed the
omitted,
of this
tions
emphasis added). The court
phrase in Seymour
National Bank v.
that,
noted
Seymour,
it had concluded
(1981), Ind.,
State
N.E.2d
plain
mod.
meaning of "enforcement of
a law" included the
reh'g,
appeal
actions of a
dis
by,
missed
457 U.S.
102 S.Ct.
pursuit
hot
suspect.
eriminal
(1982).
Id. at 801. The court refused to extend
L.Ed.2d 1344
The court found that
post
this to
arrest activities.
the State was immune from
for the
Id.
alleged negligence of a state trooper in
In City Wakarusa, supra,
the su
operating
patrol
during
high
car
preme court
question
addressed the
speed chase of a
suspect.
criminal
The
whether the law
exception
enforcement
ap
ruling
basis for the court's
was that "an
plied
patrol
to routine
activities of a deputy
engaged
in effecting an arrest is in
court,
sheriff. The
referring
Tittle,
fact
a law."
Id. at 1226. On
stated it had held that "the term 'enforce
rehearing,
the Seymour
suggested
court
ment of a law' was limited
activity
at
any
dicta
act within the
of a law
tendant
the arrest of one who
enforcement
employment
official's
may have broken the law...." Wakaru
be immune. Seymour,
The explained Tittle court further (emphasis Id. the dicta contained in Seymour was the repeated court interpre its basis for a by number of cases decided tation of the law exception expanded court which the law enforcement about three months later in City Valpa exception degree to such a Sulli (1992), Ind., raiso v. Edgecomb 587 N.E.2d van's statement in McFarlin v. State 96. In Edgecomb, officer was es (1988), Ind.App., "to the corting procession. a funeral While follow effect that action taken a law en ing the orders of superior leapf officer to forcement official within the of his rog procession, to the head of the he collid employment is suit]," immune ap [from car, ed Edgecomb's injuring Edge peared to be an accurate assessment of the comb. The trial court found that the offi state of the law. at 800. The Tittle cer was not entitled and this agree then said: "We do not that this reversed, concluding that because the extension of the Seymour holding is war performance officer's constituted ranted." Id. duty, of his he in enforcing *8 Tittle court then noted that the Act law, thus, was immune from suit. Edgecomb, supra, derogation was in citing and, at 97 of the common law City Val of thus, paraiso (1991), Edgecomb strictly must be Ind.App., 569 construed. In addi- tion, legislature "when the enacts a statute N.E.2d supreme 747. The court vacat derogation law, of the common opinion ed our and remanded the case to presumes legislature Court that is the trial proceedings court for further be cause the officer was not involved in mak aware of the common and does not any change intend to make beyond therein ing an Edgecomb, at citing what it declares in express either terms or supra, at 801. "Effect, do, make, produce;
4. v. To to attempt to to robbery." intent to rob is an to effect a execute; enforce; bring pass; accomplish." to to D.C.Ill., (1940), Spain F.Supp. United States v. (4 1968). Dictionary Law Black's ed. See 28, 30. e.g., Robbery: "Any To Effect a assault with a cardiac scene of to the dispatched lance offi to assist Here, Lackey volunteered sent arrest, personnel fire/rescue of IPD- the words of-in at the scene
cers spill, etc. drowning a chemical or aof her scene that disturbance, a situation a domestic rec- supreme court and our legislature Board, considered Review the Police peers, among unique is a that ognize en- While rum. non-emergency a to be is armed she or personnel-he emergency that accident in the route, involved certain situa- and in deadly weapon to with Lackey had these suits. of subject is In a it. duty to use tions, right and has the make she could before the scene arrive deadly force of the use where situation she- that assuming arguendo, arrest, an In granted. immunity is required, may be already present- officers of instead an arrest where an never situations than She other an arrest. making be even would and/or response emergency or immediate to respond attempting rived.5 ar there required, may be decision officers, split second other assist immunity. no is her performance Edgecomb. the officer duties, like just opinion our my Although su holdings of our contrary to It is "actual language-Le., court's being the acts that to state preme clear, agree with arrest'"-is effect to, driving but then dispatched perhaps that implication Baker's Lackey would at, where place arriving helpful. be statement definitive more is making an arrest capable be possibly is in an officer example, when For effect attempts to "the actual the same arrest, ie., making an process of actual may have broken of one arrest (or pur- in hot suspect face with face immunity to Therefore, no is law." (or making at- (1) is: suit), that officer 8(7). in Section found arrest; (2) engaged make) an tempting (8) activities; im- I.C. 384-4- in law enforcement to note fails majority 8(7). Where under Section mune to suit or condi- (17) actions lists seventeen 16.5-3 duty; doing his or merely is Only one granted. immunity is tions where looking for highways e.g., patrolling per- emergency service involves of these issuing exception." plates, license expired sonnel, "law superior's summons, obeying a or a ticket in- situations emergency many There are procession, escorting a funeral while order no where threatening situations life volving non-emergency ra- person- a routine emergency responding granted immunity is unleashed investigating an dispatch, fire dio to a nel; firefighters e.g., traffic, occupied with directing dog, an ambu- trapped, people building with in a course, prevents police officers-which more slope/floodgate" ar- "slippery Judge Chezem's requires the course, law-and First, them point. gument misses vehicles, eg., argument emergency response this kind additional addressed fire/rescue, cleanup equip- ambulances, finding is unneces- ago that "[i]t twenty years acci- creating ment, risks of additional thereby the fire has until alarm the fire sary to sound likely suspect original most (all Comm. School while Bend v. South dents Haas started." merry way). seems to It me goes Ind. Corp. accountability an incentive creates personal Second, paralogistic. argument improve heads use their police officers the scene to arrive fails officer who improves law in turn judgment, their carelessness, negli- possible crime enforcement. worthless. less than recklessness, gence, or the above Third, Judge misunderstands Chezem "pro- street to (or she) put on the has been He indicates comment-Nothing this comment innocent to place and serve" public, tect (that infor- *9 not needed or was simply because peril public in of the members by her was decided the Record is in mation It is better poor judgment. uses the officer saying that unless am What I peers). thirty seconds get an officer worthless, arrives, she is/was Contrast this get at all. later-than dis- are agrees: [officers] "[Olnce Chezem failing officer, process of who while necessary to arrive for them it is patched that An accident injures third arrive, parties opinion. Judge Chezem's n. See up the scene." (like Lackey's) ties involving police officer many other duties and services re- officer, quired there is no immu- 8(7).
nity words, under Section In other suspect's
seems to me that when a arrest
rights under the Fourth and/or Fifth
Amendments attach-then immunity under 3(7)
Section attaches to the officer.
In summary, disagree majori-
ty. Driving (7%) seven and a half miles
through major metropolitan area at a
very high speed, rate of using any without devices,
warning anony- scene of an
mously reported squabble topless
lot of a type complaint bar-a
that is considered to be a mon emergency Indianapolis Department-is legal equivalent
not the or factual of hot Thus,
pursuit. Officer was not en-
gaged a law within the mean-
ing of the Tort Claims Act. This case
should be reversed. PLOWMAN, Appellant-
Marlin
Defendant, Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.
STATE of
No. 42A05-9205-CR-138. Appeals Indiana,
Court of
Fifth District.
Dec.
Rehearing Denied Jan.