Roberts v. City of Stillwater, Okl.
| Decision Date | 09 February 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 54870,54870,2 |
| Citation | 646 P.2d 6 |
| Parties | 1982 OK CIV APP 9 Jon Harper ROBERTS, Appellant, v. CITY OF STILLWATER, OKLAHOMA, a municipal corporation, and Cindy Waterworth, Appellees |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma |
Appeal from the District Court of Payne County; Ray Lee Wall, Trial judge.
Action by citizen against city and police officer for false arrest, false imprisonment and violation of civil rights. Trial judge sustained demurrers to citizen's petition and citizen now appeals.
Clee Fitzgerald, Robert A. Nance, Fitzgerald & Worthington, Stillwater, for appellant.
Christopher D. Szlichta, Szlichta & Morgan, Stillwater, for appellee City of Stillwater, Okl.
Charles L. McBride, Stillwater, for appellee Cindy Waterworth.
This appeal involves a suit brought by a citizen of Payne County, Oklahoma, against the City of Stillwater and a Stillwater police officer for false arrest, false imprisonment and violation of civil rights.
On November 6, 1979, Jon Harper Roberts filed a petition in the District Court of Payne County, Oklahoma. The petition alleges that at about 1:05 o'clock a. m. on June 16, 1979, Roberts was driving his automobile on a city street in Stillwater when he was stopped by Officer Cindy Waterworth and told to get out of his car. The officer then, without consent, searched the car and found a partial bottle of beer. The petition further alleges that the officer did not advise Roberts of his constitutional rights or advise him of the grounds for arrest. Roberts was escorted to the police station, placed in jail and later was released upon posting bail.
In defense of the criminal charge, Roberts filed a motion to suppress and a motion to dismiss. When the matter came on for hearing Officer Waterworth failed to appear and the charge was dismissed.
Roberts' petition alleges five numbered causes of action and he seeks damages from both Officer Waterworth and the City of Stillwater for false arrest, false imprisonment and deprivation of his civil rights. 1
The Officer Waterworth and the City of Stillwater filed demurrers to the petition which the trial court sustained. Roberts now appeals.
On appeal Roberts argues under three propositions for error, that basically urge the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrers. The thrust of his argument is the officer did not make a valid arrest and, therefore, appellees, Officer Waterworth and City, are not immune from liability.
Appellees take the position that the arrest was valid; Officer Waterworth was acting within the powers granted to her by City and, therefore, under the "Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act," 51 O.S.Supp.1979 § 151 et seq., they are exempt from liability.
Section 153 of the Act says:
Each political subdivision of this state shall be liable for loss resulting from its torts ... subject to the limitations specified in this act .... (emphasis ours)
Such limitations, are found in § 155, entitled "Exemptions from Liability" and read in part as follows:
A political subdivision or an employee acting within the scope of his employment shall not be liable if a loss results from:
3. Execution or enforcement of the lawful orders of any court;
4. Adoption or enforcement of or failure to adopt or enforce a law, whether valid or invalid, including, but not limited to, any charter provision, ordinance, resolution, rule, regulation or written policy;
5. Civil disobedience, riot, insurrection or rebellion or the failure to provide, or the method of providing, police or fire protection. (emphasis ours)
Appellees argue that Officer Waterworth was acting within the scope of her employment as a police officer while enforcing city ordinances prohibiting transportation of open containers of liquor; thus, the limitations expressed above exempts them from liability.
A petition must be liberally construed as against a demurrer and all allegations of fact must be taken as true, together with all reasonable inferences therefrom, and if any fact stated therein entitled plaintiff to any relief, the demurrer should be overruled. Rotramel v. Public Service Co., Okl., 546 P.2d 1015 (1976).
Accordingly, we must view the facts as alleged in the petition as true and, therefore, we hold appellees position has no merit in cases where the arrest is not valid. 2 If such a position were correct, then under no circumstances could an officer and city be liable for tort as long as the officer claims to be acting within "the scope of his employment attempting to enforce a law." In other words, regardless how flagrant or illegal an officer's arrest or search may be, neither the arresting officer nor the political subdivision could be held liable in tort so long as the police officer said he was "acting within the scope of ... employment."
As we view this case, the pivotal issue is whether Officer Waterworth acted within the scope of her...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Etheredge v. District of Columbia, 92-CV-1151
...Hallenbeck v. City of Albany, 99 A.D.2d 639, 640, 472 N.Y.S.2d 187, 188-89 (3d Dept.1984) (per curiam); Roberts v. City of Stillwater, 646 P.2d 6, 7-9 (Okla.App.1982). Although there is no District of Columbia authority directly in point, it has been held in this jurisdiction that "a lack o......
-
Lantz v. City of Lawrence
...are determined at trial to be negligent or wrongful. Our decision in this case is not without support. In Roberts v. City of Stillwater, Okl., 646 P.2d 6 (Okla.App.1982), involving a tort claims act provision similar to the Kansas provision here involved, it was held the city was not exempt......
-
Sullivant v. City of Oklahoma City
...police improperly executed the warrant, then they cannot claim the exemptions under § 155 of the GTCA, relying on Roberts v. City of Stillwater, 646 P.2d 6 (Okl.Civ.App.1982). In Roberts, the Court of Civil Appeals held that if an arrest was invalid, the city could not rely on the exemption......
-
Overall v. State ex rel. Dept. of Public Safety, 83317
...were acting in good faith within the scope of their employment, the GTCA imposes liability on the State. See Roberts v. City of Stillwater, 646 P.2d 6 (Okla.Ct.App.1982). The lack of a mental element of the tort of false arrest is what distinguishes this case from the facts in Parker v. Cit......