COA rules on excessive force under ITCA

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The use of excessive force is not conduct immunized under section 3(8) of the Indiana Tort Claims Act, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today.

In Richard Patrick Wilson and Billy Don Wilson v. Gene Isaacs, Sheriff of Cass County, and Brad Craven, No. 09A05-0906-CV-344, the appellate court had to determine if the trial court correctly granted summary judgment for Cass County Sheriff Gene Isaacs in the Wilsons' suit alleging injuries as a result of excessive force.

Deputy Brad Craven was called to a party held at Billy Don Wilson's house in response to a report that the Wilsons' brother, Carl, had punched a juvenile in the head. The account of the events following Craven's arrival differed among the parties: Craven said Patrick Wilson grabbed him from behind and wasn't compliant with his orders, so Craven ultimately fired his Taser at him. Patrick said he tapped the deputy on the shoulder to show him the person at the party the deputy was looking for when Craven pulled out his Taser and yelled at Patrick. Patrick claimed he was shot with the Taser after not knowing which of the deputy's commands to obey. The three Wilson brothers were arrested.

There's been some confusion whether the ITCA law enforcement immunity provision applies to claims for injuries resulting from the use of excessive force during a detention or arrest, noted Judge James Kirsch.

In 1993, the Indiana Supreme Court issued Quakenbush v. Lackey, 622 N.E.2d 1284 (Ind. 1993), which held section 3(8) of the ITCA conferred immunity to law enforcement officials for breaches of public duties owed to the public at large, but didn't shelter officers who breached private duties owed to individuals. In Kemezy v. Peters, 622 N.E.2d 1296 (Ind. 1993), the high court found that law enforcement officers owed a private duty to refrain from using excessive force when making arrests and the use of excessive force isn't conduct immunized by section 3(8).

The high court later criticized the public duty/private duty test used in Quakenbush in Benton v. Oakland City, 721 N.E.2d 224, 230 (Ind. 1999), but didn't expressly overrule Quakenbush. The Supreme Court in another case later explained Benton overruled the public/private duty test at common law.

There are questions as to whether Kemezy still remains good law, wrote Judge Kirsch, noting Kemezy is directly on point with the instant case and has not been overruled. The judges followed the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana's reasoning on Kemezy to conclude the use of excessive force is not conduct immunized under section 3(8) of the ITCA.

"Therefore, consistent with the holding in Kemezy, police officers and the governmental entities that employ them can be found liable for excessive force claims despite the immunity coverage of the ITCA," he wrote. "Until our Supreme Court overrules Kemezy, we cannot conclude as a matter of law that the Sheriff is immune from liability for the Wilsons' excessive force claim based solely on the ITCA."

The trial court was correct in granting summary judgment in favor of the sheriff as to the state law claims against Craven individually. The Wilsons complained Craven acted outside the scope of his employment, but didn't present a reasonable factual basis supporting the allegations as required under Indiana Code Section 34-13-3-5(c). The undisputed evidence established Craven was acting within the scope of his employment, wrote the judge.

The case was remanded for further proceedings.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This state's high court has spoken, the fair question is answered. Years ago the Seventh Circuit footnoted the following in the context of court access: "[2] Dr. Bowman's report specifically stated that Brown "firmly believes he is obligated as a Christian to put obedience to God's laws above human laws." Dr. Bowman further noted that Brown expressed "devaluing attitudes towards pharmacological or psycho-therapeutic mental health treatment" and that he made "sarcastic remarks devaluing authority of all types, especially mental health authority and the abortion industry." 668 F.3d 437 (2012) SUCH acid testing of statist orthodoxy is just and meet in Indiana. SUCH INQUISITIONS have been green lighted. Christians and conservatives beware.

  2. It was all that kept us from tyranny. So sad that so few among the elite cared enough to guard the sacred trust. Nobody has a more sacred obligation to obey the law than those who make the law. Sophocles No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favor. Theodore Roosevelt That was the ideal ... here is the Hoosier reality: The King can do no wrong. Legal maxim From the Latin 'Rex non potest peccare'. When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal. Richard Nixon

  3. So men who think they are girls at heart can use the lady's potty? Usually the longer line is for the women's loo, so, the ladies may be the ones to experience temporary gender dysphoria, who knows? Is it ok to joke about his or is that hate? I may need a brainwash too, hey! I may just object to my own comment, later, if I get myself properly "oriented"

  4. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  5. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.