Leach v. Betters
| Decision Date | 14 November 1991 |
| Citation | 599 A.2d 424 |
| Parties | Sandra M. LEACH v. Richard BETTERS, et al. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Timothy E. Robbins, Michael Parker (orally), Portland, for plaintiff.
Deborah Mann (orally), Peter B. LaFond, Jensen, Baird, Gardner & Henry, Portland, for defendants.
William R. Stokes, Asst. Atty. Gen., Augusta, for amicus curiae.
Before McKUSICK, C.J., and ROBERTS, WATHEN, GLASSMAN, CLIFFORD, and COLLINS, JJ.
Plaintiff Sandra Leach appeals from an order of the Superior Court (York County, Fritzsche, J.) granting summary judgment in favor of defendants Richard Betters and Richard Connelly. The Superior Court held that the defendants, police officers in the Town of Wells, were immune from civil liability by virtue of the Maine Tort Claims Act, 14 M.R.S.A. § 8111(1)(C) (1980). Plaintiff contends that the immunity afforded a police officer performing a "discretionary function or duty" does not include wanton or oppressive acts or the use of force beyond that which the officer reasonably believes necessary to effect an arrest. Because plaintiff generated no genuine issue of material fact concerning wanton or oppressive police conduct, or the absence of any reasonable belief with regard to the use of force, we have no occasion to fix the outer limits of discretionary function immunity. We affirm.
Plaintiff's complaint seeks recovery for assault and battery, false arrest and imprisonment, and malicious prosecution. The factual record developed in connection with defendants' motion for summary judgment may be summarized as follows: On July 4, 1987, at 12:15 a.m., Officer Betters, assisted by a number of other officers, arrested plaintiff's fiance on U.S. Route 1 in Wells for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. As another officer pulled her handcuffed fiance toward a police cruiser, plaintiff got out of the car and protested that they were treating her fiance improperly and that he was not resisting arrest. Officers Betters and Connelly arrested plaintiff for obstructing government administration and placed her in handcuffs. Plaintiff admits that she may have attempted to pull away from the officers and she describes her arrest as follows: 1 Later in the day plaintiff visited a local hospital and was treated for a sprain. Two months later she was seen by a local physician and she states that she was treated for a dislocated shoulder and fractured collarbone. Defendants acknowledge that they arrested plaintiff and state that they placed her in handcuffs in accordance with departmental training and policy. Both officers state that they were concerned about the traffic and used only the degree of force they reasonably believed necessary to make the arrest and take her into custody.
I
Under the Maine Tort Claims Act, 14 M.R.S.A. §§ 8101-8118 (1980), governmental employees remain liable for their tortious conduct unless immunity is specifically granted. At the time of the present case, the relevant portion of the immunity provision read as follows:
1. Immunity. Employees of governmental entities shall be personally immune from civil liability for the following:
* * * * * *
C. The performance or failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty, whether or not the discretion is abused; and whether or not the statute, charter, ordinance, order, resolution, regulation or resolve under which the discretionary function or duty is performed is valid.
The parties agree that a police officer performs a discretionary function within the meaning of § 8111(1)(C) when making a warrantless arrest. Plaintiff contends, however, that police discretion in this regard is not unlimited and that a statute enacted in 1848 governing warrantless arrests marks the outer boundary of such discretion. The ancient statute provides:
Every sheriff, deputy sheriff, constable, city or deputy marshal, or police officer shall arrest and detain persons found violating any law of the State or any legal ordinance or bylaw of a town, until a legal warrant can be obtained and may arrest and detain such persons against whom a warrant has been issued though the officer does not have the warrant in his possession at the time of the arrest, and they shall be entitled to legal fees for such service; but if, in so doing, he acts wantonly or oppressively, or detains a person without a warrant longer than is necessary to procure it, he shall be liable to such person for the damages suffered thereby.
15 M.R.S.A. § 704 (1980). See Burke v. Bell, 36 Me. 317 (1853) ().
Assuming that section...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clifford v. Mainegeneral Med. Ctr.
...Doe I v. Williams, 2013 ME 24, ¶ 72, 61 A.3d 718 (stating that the MCRA is patterned after section 1983). See generally Leach v. Betters, 599 A.2d 424, 426 (Me.1991) (assuming without deciding that the MTCA's discretionary immunity provisions did not apply to shield defendant police officer......
-
Comfort v. Town of Pittsfield, Civ. No. 95-106-B.
...official's use of force is a discretionary act. Roy v. Inhabitants of City of Lewiston, 42 F.3d 691, 696 (1st Cir.1994); Leach v. Betters, 599 A.2d 424, 426 (Me.1991). The MTCA affords police officers discretionary immunity except to the extent they act in a manner so egregious as to "clear......
-
Maguire v. Municipality of Old Orchard Beach, Civ. No. 91-0095-P-C.
...535 A.2d at 425. The Law Court has addressed whether certain police actions are ministerial or discretionary. See, e.g., Leach v. Betters, 599 A.2d 424 (Me. 1991) ("The parties agree that a police officer performs a discretionary function ... when making a warrantless arrest."); Moore v. Le......
-
Johnson v. City of Biddeford
...omitted). A police officer's decision about whether to make a warrantless arrest is a discretionary function, see Leach v. Betters , 599 A.2d 424, 426 (Me. 1991), as are an officer's decisions about investigating crimes and protecting citizens from harm, see Palm v. Kennebec Cty. Sheriff's ......