Maness v. Daily

[TORT LAW]

In Maness v. Daily,[1] the supreme court held that qualified immunity protected state troopers from excessive force claims.[2] Maness had fled from state troopers, who pursued him until a police department officer shot him non-fatally.[3] Subsequently, Maness brought claims of excessive force against the troopers.[4] Finding the troopers were public servants protected by qualified immunity, the lower court granted summary judgment.[5] On appeal, Maness argued that officers may be liable for excessive force if they violate the Fourth Amendment by provoking a violent confrontation.[6] The supreme court affirmed the lower court’s decision, reasoning that qualified immunity protected police officers’ exercise of discretionary functions.[7] The court further reasoned that, regarding excessive force claims, the officer’s conduct must be objectively reasonable or he must reasonably believe his conduct was lawful from the perspective of a reasonable officer.[8] Here, the troopers’ actions were objectively reasonable.[9] Affirming that lower court’s decision, the supreme court held that qualified immunity protected state troopers from excessive force claims.[10]

 



[1] 307 P.3d 894 (Alaska 2013).

[2] Id. at 903.

[3] Id. at 897–98.

[4] Id. at 899.

[5] Id.

[6] Id. at 902.

[7] Id. at 901.

[8] Id.

[9] Id. at 903.

[10] Id.

Maness v. Daily

[TORT LAW]

In Maness v. Daily,[1] the supreme court held that qualified immunity protected state troopers from excessive force claims.[2] Maness had fled from state troopers, who pursued him until a police department officer shot him non-fatally.[3] Subsequently, Maness brought claims of excessive force against the troopers.[4] Finding the troopers were public servants protected by qualified immunity, the lower court granted summary judgment.[5] On appeal, Maness argued that officers may be liable for excessive force if they violate the Fourth Amendment by provoking a violent confrontation.[6] The supreme court affirmed the lower court’s decision, reasoning that qualified immunity protected police officers’ exercise of discretionary functions.[7] The court further reasoned that, regarding excessive force claims, the officer’s conduct must be objectively reasonable or he must reasonably believe his conduct was lawful from the perspective of a reasonable officer.[8] Here, the troopers’ actions were objectively reasonable.[9] Affirming that lower court’s decision, the supreme court held that qualified immunity protected state troopers from excessive force claims.[10]

 



[1] 307 P.3d 894 (Alaska 2013).

[2] Id. at 903.

[3] Id. at 897–98.

[4] Id. at 899.

[5] Id.

[6] Id. at 902.

[7] Id. at 901.

[8] Id.

[9] Id. at 903.

[10] Id.