Justices rule officer immune from lawsuit over arrest of wrong woman

Nearly four years after arresting the wrong woman, a Northwest Arkansas officer prevailed at the state Supreme Court when a majority ruled he should be immune from a civil lawsuit.

The arrest, the result of an incorrect identification in the state's criminal database, led to a civil suit in Benton County in which the trial judge found the officer was not protected from a civil proceeding for his actions.

On Thursday, a majority -- four justices, with one concurrence -- found that the officer in question was protected from a civil suit. Two justices dissented, arguing the trial judge's decision was the correct one and that citizens are entitled to protections against wrongful arrest.

The case began in May 2012 when Bella Vista police officer Travis Trammell was dispatched to a gravel pit after receiving a report of people unlawfully firing weapons.

Trammell arrived and found Linda Wright and two others. According to court records, Wright and her group were firing weapons in the area, and Trammell checked their IDs.

Wright's name was flagged in the Arkansas Crime Information Center database for having a warrant for failure to appear in Washington County.

The woman denied having the warrant, and when Trammell checked again, the woman's date of birth, picture and driver's license number matched the warrant and a dispatcher for the county confirmed the warrant was valid.

The warrant was for a different Linda Wright, according to court records, and the arrested Wright was eventually cleared of wrongdoing. She filed a complaint against Trammell in May 2013, arguing that the officer intentionally violated the torts of false arrest and false imprisonment.

City employees like Trammell are not liable in suits for negligence but are liable for intentional acts, the majority wrote.

The court found Wright didn't show any facts supporting her claim that the officer intentionally made a false arrest, and as a result, the court ruled that Judge John Scott wrongly denied the officer's request to end the suit because of his immunity.

In her dissent, Justice Jo Hart wrote that the majority exceeded its mandate. By ruling on whether Wright brought forth facts supporting she was wrongfully arrested instead of the issue of immunity, the high court played the part of the trial judge, she wrote.

"The majority appears to conflate intentional conduct with malicious conduct. Malice, however, is relevant in determining whether a false imprisonment has occurred," Hart wrote. "The false imprisonment alleged here was not the result of errors by court personnel. Rather, the fault lay with the law enforcement officer ... [Wright] was unlawfully imprisoned. For this, she should have recourse against those law enforcement officials who are responsible."

The author of the majority opinion, Justice Paul Danielson, said Hart had made her own findings of fact in the case independent of the trial court.

"The dissent alleges that the majority has 'erroneously conducted its own trial on the pleadings' in finding that [Trammell] did not commit the intentional torts of false arrest and false imprisonment. On the contrary, the majority has plainly stated that [Trammell] did not commit the intentional torts of false arrest ... as a matter of law," Danielson wrote. "After wrongfully accusing the majority of making improper findings of fact, the dissent proceeds to make very specific findings of fact."

The case will go back to Scott's court for a new ruling on the summary judgment request that is in line with the majority's opinion.

Metro on 04/08/2016

Upcoming Events