Wyoming Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Victim in Negligent Investigation Case

Accident – Death – Obituary News : : 1. Wyo. Supreme Court duty of care
2. Law enforcement officer duty of care Wyoming

The Wyoming Supreme Court recently ruled that law enforcement officers have a duty of care to conduct investigations in a non-negligent manner. The decision, passed by a 3-2 majority, sparked disagreement among justices. The case involved a hemp-growing operation where officers seized plant material, leading to criminal charges against Deborah Palm-Egle. The court discussed the duty of law enforcement officers, rejecting the idea of a “new duty” to suspects. While officers can assert qualified immunity, they still owe a duty to suspects during criminal investigations. Two dissenting justices argued against this ruling, highlighting potential implications on prosecutors. For more on this story, contact criminal justice reporter Samir Knox.

The Wyoming Supreme Court’s Ruling on Law Enforcement’s Duty of Care

In a recent ruling by the Wyoming Supreme Court, it was determined that law enforcement officers have a duty of care when conducting investigations, and they must handle them in a non-negligent manner. The decision, passed by a 3-2 majority, has sparked controversy and debate among legal experts and the public.

The Background of the Case

The case in question involved Deborah Palm-Egle, who resided on a property in Albin, Wyoming. Officers from the Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI) seized a significant amount of plant material from her property, suspecting it to be marijuana. The main officer named in the complaint, DCI Officer Jon Briggs, received a tip-off about a suspected marijuana growing operation in the area, leading to the investigation.

During the investigation, it was discovered that the plant material seized had a THC level of around 0.3%, which is considered the threshold for classifying it as marijuana instead of hemp. Despite this, Palm-Egle was charged with three felonies and one misdemeanor based on the initial testing done by DCI.

Supreme Court’s Verdict

Justice Lynne Boomgaarden delivered the opinion on behalf of the court, stating that law enforcement officers have a duty to act as reasonable peace officers of ordinary prudence during investigations. The court rejected the notion that investigating officers do not owe a duty to suspects, emphasizing that all individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

When addressing the issue of qualified immunity, the court ruled that officers can assert this defense but emphasized that it does not guarantee complete protection from liability. The majority opinion highlighted the criteria for evaluating culpability in the course of an investigation.

Dissenting Opinion

However, two justices, Justice Keith Kautz and Justice Kari Gray, dissented from the majority ruling. They argued that the court failed to properly address the obligations officers have to suspects during investigations. Justice Kautz emphasized that the relationship between an investigating officer and a suspect is unique and requires a different set of considerations.

Overall, the Wyoming Supreme Court’s ruling on law enforcement’s duty of care has raised important questions about the responsibilities of officers during criminal investigations and the potential implications for future cases in the state.

Samir Knox, the criminal justice and public safety reporter for the Wyoming Tribune Eagle, covered this story. For more information, you can reach out to him via email at sknox@wyomingnews.com or by phone at 307-633-3152.