City of Saint Albans v. Botkins

Decision Date23 November 2011
Docket NumberNo. 101596.,101596.
Citation228 W.Va. 393,719 S.E.2d 863
CourtWest Virginia Supreme Court
PartiesCITY OF SAINT ALBANS, A West Virginia Municipal Corporation and B.L. Tagayun and A.C. Truitt, Defendants Below, Petitioners v. David A. BOTKINS, Plaintiff Below, Respondent.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Syllabus by the Court

1. “A circuit court's denial of summary judgment that is predicated on qualified immunity is an interlocutory ruling which is subject to immediate appeal under the ‘collateral order’ doctrine.” Syl. Pt. 2, Robinson v. Pack, 223 W.Va. 828, 679 S.E.2d 660 (2009).

2. This Court reviews de novo the denial of a motion for summary judgment, where such a ruling is properly reviewable by this Court.” Syl. Pt. 1, Findley v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 213 W.Va. 80, 576 S.E.2d 807 (2002).

3. “A motion for summary judgment should be granted only when it is clear that there is no genuine issue of fact to be tried and inquiry concerning the facts is not desirable to clarify the application of the law.” Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Federal Ins. Co. of New York, 148 W.Va. 160, 133 S.E.2d 770 (1963).

4. “Government officials performing discretionary functions are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. A policeman's lot is not so unhappy that he must choose between being charged with dereliction of duty if he does not arrest when he has probable cause, and being mulcted in damages if he does.” Syllabus, Bennett v. Coffman, 178 W.Va. 500, 361 S.E.2d 465 (1987).

5. “The ultimate determination of whether qualified or statutory immunity bars a civil action is one of law for the court to determine. Therefore, unless there is a bona fide dispute as to the foundational or historical facts that underlie the immunity determination, the ultimate questions of statutory or qualified immunity are ripe for summary disposition.” Syl. Pt. 1, Hutchison v. City of Huntington, 198 W.Va. 139, 479 S.E.2d 649 (1996).

6. A public officer is entitled to qualified immunity from civil damages for performance of discretionary functions where: (1) a trial court finds the alleged facts, taken in the light most favorable to the party asserting injury, do not demonstrate that the officer's conduct violated a constitutional right; or (2) a trial court finds that the submissions of the parties could establish the officer's conduct violated a constitutional right but further finds that it would be clear to any reasonable officer that such conduct was lawful in the situation confronted. Whenever the public officer's conduct appears to infringe on constitutional protections, the lower court must consider both whether the officer's conduct violated a constitutional right as well as whether the officer's conduct was unlawful.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, Honorable John S. Hrko, Senior Status Judge, sitting by temporary assignment, Civil Action No. 09–C–1432. REVERSED AND REMANDED.Duane J. Ruggier, II, David A. Holtzapfel, Pullin, Fowler, Flanagan, Brown & Poe, Charleston, WV, for Petitioners.

Michael T. Clifford, Law Office of Michael T. Clifford, Charleston, WV, for Respondent.

McHUGH, Justice:

In this interlocutory appeal of the November 5, 2010, order of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County,1 the defendants below—the City of Saint Albans, B.L. Tagayun and A.C. Truitt 2 (hereinafter collectively referred to as Appellants)—challenge the trial court's refusal to grant summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. The underlying civil complaint filed by David A. Botkins (hereinafter “Mr. Botkins” or Appellee) included the allegation that his civil rights had been violated due to the use of excessive force by municipal law enforcement officers. In response, Appellants raised the defense of qualified immunity in a motion for summary judgment.

Appellants contend that the lower court applied an incorrect standard in its qualified immunity analysis and improperly denied its motion for summary judgment on this ground. They also maintain that the lower court erred by not ruling on the other grounds they raised in support of summary judgment. 3 After careful review of the record, due consideration of the arguments raised by the parties, and close examination of the applicable law, the denial of summary judgment is reversed on qualified immunity grounds for the reasons stated in this opinion.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

The incident giving rise to the underlying civil complaint involved a confrontation between Mr. Botkins and the Saint Albans police on November 23, 2008. Two municipal law enforcement officers were involved, one being a paid police officer, Mr. Tagayun, and the other being a reserve (volunteer) officer, Mr. Truitt. According to the affidavit of Mr. Truitt in the record, the two officers were on foot patrol in an area near a Taco Bell in Saint Albans around 3 a.m. on November 23, 2008, when they heard shouting coming from the proximity of the drive-thru lane of the restaurant. At the same time they saw a male running from the main parking lot of the Taco Bell to the drive-thru area. The officers crossed the street to investigate and observed three males outside of a Jeep Cherokee holding items which could have been used as weapons. One of the males had a long-handled Mag-lite flashlight, a second had a small bat, the third (Mr. Botkins) did not have anything in his hands but did have a cast on his right arm. These three males were in what appeared to be a confrontational posture facing three other males who were standing empty handed outside of a pickup truck.

Appellee's explanation of the facts of what occurred on November 23, 2008, appear in his deposition contained in the record. He testified that one of the two male companions with him in his Jeep Cherokee that morning began shouting obscenities at the occupants of a truck ahead of them in line at the drive-thru because the driver of the truck was slow in moving forward to close a gap in the line. The three male occupants of the truck exited the vehicle and approached the Jeep.4 Appellee and the two males with him exited the Jeep. While Appellee did not have anything in his hands when he got out of the Jeep, one of his companions had a flashlight 5 in his hand and the other had a wooden club.6 Appellee said that because of the cast on his arm he positioned himself so that his friends were between him and the three males approaching from the truck. As the six males faced off shouting obscenities at each other, one of Appellee's passengers recognized a passenger of the truck as someone he knew, causing the confrontation to abate. Appellee testified in his deposition that the change from an argumentative showdown to a calmer exchange between the six males occurred “about that time” Officers Tagayun and Truitt arrived on the scene. Portions of the depositions in the record of three other young males involved in the encounter corroborated this observation.

When the officers approached the group, Officer Tagayun ordered the group to get down on the ground and all but Mr. Botkins complied fully with the order. In his deposition testimony, Appellee said that when Officer Tagayun saw him on his knees the officer ran up to him, and threw Appellee's hands up behind his back while kneeing him in the back. Appellee said that Officer Tagayun then hit him in the head with the butt of his drawn gun. He further said that while the officer proceeded to hit him twice more with the butt of the gun and repeatedly kicked him he yelled: “That's police brutality. I didn't do nothing wrong. Why did you hit me?” Appellee was subsequently handcuffed and placed in shackles, which were removed when the ambulance arrived to attend to Mr. Botkins' head wounds.7

Based upon this incident, Mr. Botkins filed a complaint initiating a civil suit against the city and the officers on August 6, 2009. Mr. Botkins's complaint alleged various grounds including “constitutional tort action” for violation of federal and state constitutional rights,8 vicarious liability and negligent hiring on the part of the city, battery and intentional infliction of mental, physical and emotional distress by the officers, and false arrest/malicious prosecution directed solely at Mr. Tagayun for “maliciously and falsely obtain[ing] warrants for the arrest of the plaintiff.”

On August 11, 2010, Appellants moved for summary judgment asserting immunity from suit both on qualified immunity and statutory immunity grounds. They maintained that qualified immunity was applicable because the individual actions of the officers were not “clearly unlawful” as defined by the United States Supreme Court in Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001). It was stressed that Mr. Truitt was acting in the capacity of a volunteer officer, did not cause injury to Mr. Botkins and he had no duty to intervene. Two arguments were made with regard to statutory immunity under the state's Governmental Tort Claims and Insurance Reform Act: 9 (1) the City of Saint Albans was immune from common law claims for any intentional act of its employees; 10 and (2) the individuals were immune from the claims because they were acting within the scope of their authority and without evidence of malice, bad faith or recklessness.11

The transcript of the November 4, 2010, hearing on the summary judgment motion reflects that the circuit court primarily addressed the qualified immunity argument, although brief consideration was given to the contention that Mr. Truitt as a reserve/volunteer officer had no duty to intervene.12 The circuit court denied the motion for summary judgment concluding that the case would be better decided on a motion for a directed verdict. Defense counsel, focusing on Mr. Truitt's involvement, restated that the U.S. Supreme Court's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
35 cases
  • Weigle v. Pifer
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia
    • October 14, 2015
    ...a provision of this code.W. Va. Code § 29–12A–5(b).As the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals noted in City of Saint Albans v. Botkins , 228 W.Va. 393, 398, 719 S.E.2d 863 (2011), "[West Virginia's] approach to matters concerning immunity historically has followed federal law." Consequen......
  • W. Va. Reg'l Jail & Corr. Facility Auth. v. A. B.
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • October 31, 2014
    ...would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted." City of Saint Albans v. Botkins, 228 W.Va. 393, 400, 719 S.E.2d 863, 870 (2011) (quoting Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 202 (2009)). To that end, there is no question that D. H. allegedly v......
  • W.Va. State Police v. J.H., 19-0741
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • March 26, 2021
    ...and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation." City of Saint Albans v. Botkins, 228 W. Va. 393, 399 n. 16, 719 S.E.2d 863, 869 n. 16 (2011) (quoting Graham [v. Conner], 490 U.S. [386,] 397, 109 S. Ct. 1865[, 1872, 104 L. Ed. 2d 443 (1989)]).Mas......
  • W. Va. State Police v. J.H.
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • March 29, 2021
    ...and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation." City of Saint Albans v. Botkins , 228 W. Va. 393, 399 n. 16, 719 S.E.2d 863, 869 n. 16 (2011) (quoting Graham [v. Connor ], 490 U.S. [386,] 397, 109 S. Ct. 1865[, 1872, 104 L. Ed. 2d 443 (1989)] ).......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT