I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 7 - CA- 0 0 2 2 7 - S CT F. CH ARLES PH

I LLI PS
v. M ISS ISS IP P I D EP A R T M EN T O F P U B L IC SAFETY, M

I SS I SS I PPI H IGH W AY SAFE TY PAT ROL, J OSEPH W

. S EAL SAND THOM

ASE. LI TTLE
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 12/ 27/ 2006 TRI AL J UD GE: CO UR T F RO M W HI CH AP P E AL E D: HON
. ROBER T B. HEL F RI CH F ORRES T COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT A TTO RN EY FO R A PPELL A N T: SCO TT PH I LLI PS A T T O R N E Y S F O R A P P E L L E E S : W IL L IA M E
. W H IT F IE L D , III KAAR A L
. L I ND NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - P ERS ONA L I NJ URY D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 04/ 03/ 2008 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:

B E F O R E W A L L E R , P . J. , C A R L SO N A N D L A M A R , JJ. LAM AR, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. Pl ai nt i f

f F. Char l es Phi l l i ps s eeks t o r ecove rdamages f ori nj ur i es s us t ai ned w hen l aw enf or cementof

f i cer s us ed phys i cal f

or ce dur i ng the cour s e of an i nves t i gat ory s t op af t er
m i s t aki ng hi m fora sus pect . T he C i r cui tC our tof Forr es tC ounty gra nt ed summ ary j udgm ent f orthe i ndi vi dual def

endant s , M i s s i s s i ppi H i ghw ay Patr ol O f f i cer s J os eph W
. Seal s and T hom as E
. L i tt l e, and af t era benc h tr i al found in fa vorof the r emai ni ng def

endant s , the M i s s i s s i pp i D e pa r tmentof Pub l i c Sa f

e ty a nd the M i s s i s s i pp i H i gh w a y Pa tr ol
. Phi l l i psN othi ng i n the r ecor d i ndi cat es thatthe M H P, i ncl udi ng Tr ooper s Seal s , L i t t l e, and 1 R a y b o rn , k n e w o r h a d a c c e s s to in fo rm a tio n th a t P h illip s w a s in v o lv e d in th e p u rs u it. 

### 2 appea l s , cl ai m i ng thatthe tr i al c ourte rr ed i n i t s appl i cat i on of M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed § 1 1 -4 6 -9 (1 )(c ) u n d e r th e M iss iss ip p i T o rt C laim s A c t. FACTS ¶2
. O n O ctob er 1 5 , 2 0 0 3 , aro u n d 6 :45 p . m . , a fem ale m ad e a 9 1 1 ca ll to the H att iesb u rg P o lice D e p a rtm e n t, w h ich w a s re c o rd e d o n the H a tti e sb u rg P o lice D e p a rtm e n t (H P D ) ra d io tra n sm iss io n . S h e cla im e d h e r b o y frie n d (Ja c k so n ) to o k b o th se ts o f k e y s to h e r 1 9 9 2 W h ite F o rd E x p lo re r a n d left in the v e h icle
. S h e in fo rm e d th e o p e ra to r th a t sh e “ ju st file d d o m e stic assaul tchar ges on hi m w i th C ovi ngt on C ounty. ” The C ovi ngt on C ounty Sher i f f’ s O f f i ce i ni t i at ed pur s ui tof

J acks on, and H PD t ook overthe pur s ui t , tr avel i ng s outh on H i ghw ay 49, after the su sp ec t r ea ch ed the c ity li m it s o f H att iesb u rg. T h e C o v ing ton C o u n ty S h eriff’s O ffi ce info rm ed H P D that the p u rsuit ha d rea ch ed sp ee d s o f m o re tha n 1 0 0 m il es p er h o u r. ¶3
. Pl ai nt i f

f F. Char l e s Phi l l i ps , a r e s e rve Forr e s tCounty Depu ty Sh e r i f f , w a s dr i vi ng f r om a meet i ng i n L aurel , M i s s i s s i ppi , t o hi s hom e i n H att i es bur g, M i s s i s s i ppi , w hen he h ea rd o f th e p u rsuit on a p o li ce rad io an d d ec ided to h elp. P h il li p s w as d ri v ing a w h it e F o rd E s cape. H e i nf

orm ed J ef

f r ey B yr d, the Forr es tC ounty Sher i f f’ s O f f i ce di s pat cher , thathe
w a s g o in g to b e tra v e lin g so u th b o u n d a ss istin g in th e p u rsu it. ¶4
. M i s s i s s i ppi H i ghway Pa tr ol ( M H P) Tr oo pe r s Donni e Ray bo rn, J os e ph Sea l s , and T hom as L i tt l e w er e al s o engage d i n pur s ui tof t he suspe ctand comm uni cat ed thr ough the M H P r adi o. D i s pa t c h i nf ormed the m t ha tthe f

l e e i ng s us pe c tha d b e e n r e po r t e d a s t he 1

### 3

perpetr at orof

a domest i c cr i m e ea r l i erthatday. R ayborn, ahea d of the othertr ooper s and
w i th the s us pecti n s i ght , per i odi cal l y r eport ed hi s l ocat i on on the r adi o. Seal s re ques t ed the
su sp ec t’ s v eh icl e d esc ri p ti o n , an d d ispa tch d esc ri b ed the v eh icl e a s a w h it e, 19 9 2 F o rd E xpl or erand i nf

orm ed hi m that the f ul l r egi s tr at i on i nf

orm at i on w as unknow n. C om m uni cat i ng overthe r adi o, Rayborn r eci t ed the t ag num ber , and the di s pat cherr epea t ed the n u m b er. Se als t esti fi ed that h e n ev er h ea rd th e tag n u m b er. ¶ 5
. T h e su sp e c t, w ith R a y b o rn fo llo w in g , p a ss e d P h ill ip s o n th e h ig h w a y . T h e e v e n ts thatoccurr ed f

orthe nexts i x m i nut es ar e di s put ed. ¶6
. A c c o rd ing t o S ea ls’ s t esti m o n y , as S ea ls ap p roa ch ed R ay b o rn fro m th e re a r, b o th tr av eli n g in the leftlane o f traffi c, S ea ls saw P h il lip s’s w h ite F o rd E sca p e w ith it s h az ard lig h ts fla sh in g , trav e lin g so u th o n H ig h w a y 4 9 in th e ri g h t lan e in c lo se p ro x im ity to R ayborn. Seal s t es t i f

i ed thathe a dvi s ed R ayborn t o conducta “r ol l i ng r oadbl ock” i n or der t o s t op the s us pect ’ s vehi cl e. Seal s bel i eved Rayborn w as compl yi ng w hen he c ont i nued
a h e a d o f P h ill ip s’s v e h icle a n d m o v e d in to th e rig h t lan e . H o w e v e r, R a y b o rn , w a s, in fa c t, cont i nui ng af

t erthe suspect . B el i evi ng Phi l l i ps t o be the s us pect , Seal s came al ongs i de Phi l l i ps ’ s carand mot i oned t o and/ ors poke t o Phi l l i ps. A f t ernum er ous att empt s t o bl ock P h il li p s’s v eh icl e, S ea ls suc ce ssfu ll y stop p ed P h il li p s o n the righ t sho u lder. ¶7. Seal s exi t ed hi s patr ol car , w ent t o Phi l l i ps ’ s carand opene d the dr i ver ’ s door of Phi l l i ps ’ s vehi cl e. Phi l l i ps , w ho w ear i ng a coa tand s l acks , di d nots how Seal s a badge or any i dent i f

i cat i on. Seal s t es t i f

i ed thathe neveraske d P hi l l i ps fori dent i f i cat i on, t ol d Phi l l i ps
w hy he w as und er arres tor ex p lai n ed to Ph i l l i ps w hy he w as bei ng detai ned
. S eal s al so

### 4

t es t i f i ed thathe i s s ued several verbal comm ands t o Phi l l i ps , i ns truct i ng hi m t o exi tthe
v e h icle . A c c o rd in g to S e a ls, in ste a d o f e x iti n g o r p lac in g h is h a n d s in a h ig h ly v isib le l ocat i on, Phi l l i ps pl ace d hi s hands i n hi s l ap, w hi ch Seal s i nt erpr et ed as a thr eat eni ng ges tur e. D ue t o Phi l l i ps ’ s non- compl i ance , Seal s f or ci bl y r emoved Phi l l i ps fr om hi s vehi cl e and p u sh e d h im o n to th e g ro u n d . S e a ls p lac e d P h ill ip s o n h is rig h t sh o u ld e r a n d a ttem p ted to handcuf f hi m . W hen Phi l l i ps w as for ced t o t he gr ound, hi s head w as on ornearthe gr avel
su rfa c e a b u tti n g th e ro a d . P h ill ip s in iti a lly fa iled to c o m p ly w ith S e a ls’s in stru c tio n to pr ovi de hi s hands f

orhandcuf

f i ng and, ats om e poi nt , advi s ed Seal s he w as unabl e t o compl y. S e a ls a n d L itt le te stifie d th a t P h ill ip s re sis ted , b u t to g e th e r th e y w e re a b le e v e n tu a lly to han dcu ff P hil l i ps. ¶8. S eal s t est i fi ed thatP hil l i ps then i den t i fi ed him sel f as a res erve dep uty w i th the F orr est C ounty Sher i f

f’ s O f f i ce tryi ng t o hel p w i t h t he pu rs ui t . Seal s and Li t t l e t es t i f i ed thatthey hel ped Phi l l i ps t o hi s f

eet , r emoved the handcuf f s a nd advi s ed hi m t o s eek medi cal att ent i on f orhi s i nj ur i es . A ccor di ng t o Sea l s , Phi l l i ps ’ s i nj ur i es w er e al l i ncurr ed dur i ng t akedow n and handcuf f i ng and w er e notcaus ed by hi t t i ng, beat i ng orchoki ng P hi l l i ps . Seal s t es t i f i ed that he of f er ed t o getan ambul ance f orP hi l l i ps , butPhi l l i ps decl i ned the of f er . T hen, acc or di ng t o L i tt l e, P hi l l i ps i nf

orm ed the Forr es tC ounty di s pat cherthathe w as “ok. ” The di s pat cher
c o n firm e d th a t P h ill ip s m a d e th a t sta tem e n t.T his t est i m on y is no ton l y con tradi ct ory to t hat of S eal s bu tals o t o that of the F orr est 2 C o u n ty S h e riff’s O ffic e d isp a tch e r, w h o te s tif ied h e n e v e r to ld P h ill ip s to sto p th e p u rsu it. F u rth er, th e testi m o n y i s i n co n tr ad ict ion of de fen se ex h ibit20 , a reco rdin g fr o m the c am era i n the f r ontof Seal s ’ s vehi cl e, w hi ch cl ear l y s how s Phi l l i ps on t he highw ay i n m ot i on im m ed iat ely p ri o r t o S ea ls pu ll ing h im o v er. 

### 5 ¶9
. O n th e o ther h an d , P h il li p s test if ied that after it w as co m m u n icated to h im b y rad io t o cea s e the pur s ui t , he pul l ed of f o nto t he ri gh ts i de of

the r oad and s t opped hi s vehi cl e. 2 S e a ls th e n p u lled a lo n g sid e h im a n d m o tio n e d fo r h im to p u ll fo rw a rd , w h ich h e d id . S e a ls exi t ed hi s vehi cl e, came overt o Phi l l i ps ’ s door and al one f or ced Phi l l i ps t o t he gr ound and handcuf f ed hi m . Phi l l i ps s ai d f urtherthat , once Seal s had hi m on the gr ound, s om eone gr abbed hi m by the back of the hai ra nd thrus thi s he ad tw i ce i nt o the gr avel s ur f ace on the
s i de of the r oad and c hoked hi m unt i l he w entuncons ci ous . A f t erthat , he hear d the i ns truct i on t o getup buts ai d he w as unabl e t o do so. P hi l l i ps w as as s i s t ed of f the gr ound
w hi l e handc uf

f ed, and then the handcuf f s w er e t aken of

f , though he t es t i f

i ed thathe had not i dent i f i ed hi m s el f atthatp oi nt . Phi l l i ps t es t i f i ed thathe w as as s i s t ed t o hi s carbutno one of f er ed t o t ake hi m t o the hos pi t al ort o cal l an ambul ance . ¶10. A ccor di ng t o the records atthe em ergency room , P hil l i ps’s inj uri es on arr i val
cons i s t ed of

a hemor rhage in h is rig h t ey e ; a g a p in g , tw o -c e n tim e terlac e ra tio n in th e m id d le
o f h is r ig h t e y e b ro w , w h ich h a d sto p p e d b lee d in g ; ab o u t a o n e -h a lf-c e n tim e terlac e ra tio n to the l ef teyel i d j us tbel ow the eye br ow ; and a c oupl e of s catt er ed abr as i ons t o the f or ehea d.T he count er cl ai m w as f ordef amat i on. 3 R el easi ng the i ndi vi dual def endant s w as i n acc or dance w i th M i s s i s s i ppi C ode 4 A nn otat ed sect i on 11 -46-7( 2), w hich r eads: A n empl oyee may be j oi ned i n an ac t i on agai ns ta governm ent al ent i ty i n a r epr es ent at i ve capaci ty i f the actor om i s s i on com pl ai ned of i s one f orw hi ch th e g o v e rn m e n tal e n tity m a y b e liab le, b u t n o e m p lo y e e sh a ll b e h e ld per s onal l y l i abl e f

oract s or om i s s i ons occurr i ng w i thi n t he cour s e and s cope of the em ployee' s duti es.


### 6 P ROCEDURAL HI S TORY ¶1 1. Phi l l i ps f

i l e d s ui t , a l l e gi ng negl i gence , agai ns tthe def endant s , t he M i s s i s s i ppi D epartm entof

Publ i c Saf

ety and M i s s i s s i ppi H i ghw ay Patr ol ( M H P) , Seal s , and Li tt l e. Phi l l i ps al l eged thatt he M H P: ( 1) fa i l ed t o have pol i ci es and proc edur es i n ef f ectr egar di ng pur s ui t s ; ( 2) fa i l ed t o t r ai n off i cer s adequat el y re gar di ng purs ui t s and arr es t s ; and ( 3) f ai l ed t o comm uni cat e ade quat el y w i th of f i cer s . P hil l i ps al s o cl ai m ed thatD ef endant s Seal s and L i t t l e: ( 1) f

ai l ed t o f ol l ow pol i ci es and pr ocedur es i n ef f ect , i f any, r egar di ng pur s ui t s and
a rre sts ; (2 ) fa iled to a d e q u a tely a n d tim e ly c o m m u n ic a te w ith th e M H P tro o p e rs a n d w ith P h ill ip s; (3 ) u se d e x c e ss iv e fo rc e in s u b d u in g P h ill ip s; a n d (4 ) fa iled to a ss ist P h ill ip s in pr ocur i ng m edi cal tr eatm entorcal l i ng an am bul ance forhi m . T he def endant s ans w er ed, and S e a ls file d a c o u n ter c laim , w h ich w a s d ism iss e d w ith p re ju d ice b y a n a g re e d fin a l ju d g m e n t. 3 ¶1 2
. D efe n d an ts fi led a m o ti o n to d ism iss an d /or for su m m ary jud g m en t. T h e tr ial co u rt den ied the m oti on as t o the M H P , bu tgrant ed the m oti on as t o the i nd i vidual defend ants , Seal s and Li tt l e. A f

t era benc h tr i al , the courtent er ed i t s f i ndi ngs of

f actand conc l us i ons 4

### 7

of l aw . T he courtexpl ai ned thatPhi l l i ps f ai l ed t o pr ove, as r equi r ed underthe M i s s i s s i ppi T or tCl ai m s A ct( M T C A ) : ( 1) thatSeal s and Li t t l e w er e ac t i ng i n r eckl es s di s r egar d and ( 2) that P h il li p s w as n o t eng ag ed in crim inal ac ti v ity a t th e ti m e h e w as in jured
. T h e c o u rt enter ed it s j ud gm ent i n favor of the d efendan t s and assessed the c ost s agai nstP hil l i ps. Phi l l i ps t i m el y appea l ed. DI S CU S S I ON I. W h ether T ro o p er s Sea l s’ s an d L i tt l e’s C on d u ct W as i n R eckles s D i sregar d of t h e S afet y a n d W el l -bei n g o f Ph i l l i p s. ¶13. T hi s Courtr evi ew s e rr or s of l aw de novo, i ncl udi ng the proper appli cat i on of the M T C A , M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed s ect i ons 11- 46- 1 et s eq ( R ev. 2004)
. Cit

y of Jacks on
v. P o w e ll , 917 So. 2d 59 ( M i s s . 2005) ( ci t i ng Cit y of Jacks on v. B r is ter , 838 So. 2d 274, 278 ( M i s s . 2003) )
. T he f

i ndi ngs of

f actby a ci r cui tcourtj udge, s i t t i ng w i thouta j ury, w i l l not b e re v e rse d o n a p p e a l w h e re th e y a re su p p o rt e d b y su b sta n tial, cr e d ib le, a n d re a so n a b le
e v id e n c e . Cit

y of G r eenvil

le v. Jones , 925 So. 2d 106, 109 ( M i s s . 2006) ( ci t i ng Cit y of Ja ckson v. P erry , 7 6 4 S o . 2 d 3 7 3 , 3 7 6 (M iss. 2 0 0 0 )). ¶14. Phi l l i ps ’ s f

i r s t as s ert i on i s that the tr i al court ’ s f i ndi ngs of f

act s houl d be s ubj ect t o a he i gh t e ne d r e vi e w s i nc e h e a l l e ge s the y a r e a do pt e d ve rba t i m, i n pe r t i ne ntp a r t , f r om t he d e fe n d a n ts’ tria l b rie f. In d e e d , th is C o u rt h a s h e ld tha t he ig h ten e d rev iew w a s a p p ro p ria te wh e r e th e tr i a l j u d g e a d o p t e d v e rb a t i m ap a r ty ’ s f i n d i n g s o f

f a c ta n d c o n c l u s i o n s o f

l a w, d iffe rin g o n ly in th a t th e trial ju d g e f illed in th e b lan k s fo r th e p e rc e n tag e s o f fa u lt
a p p o rt io n e d to th e p a rt ie s . Mis s . D ep’t of Trans p. v. Johnson , 87 3 S o. 2d 10 8, 11 1 (M i ss.

### 8

2004)
. H ow ever , thi s cas e i s m or e aki n t o D el ta R egional

Medical Centerv. V

enton , 964 So. 2d 500 ( M i s s . 2007)
. T he V ent on Courtf ound def er ent i al r evi ew appr opr i at e bec aus e, i n addi t i on t o adopt i on of s om e f i ndi ngs fr om each party’ s fi ndi ngs , t he tr i al courti ncl uded its o w n fi n d in g s . I

d. a t 5 0 3 -0 4 . T h e C o u rt re jec ted th e a rg u m e n t th a t Johnson m andat ed h e ig h te n e d re v ie w in s u c h c ir c u m s ta n c e s . I d. ¶ 1 5
. Th i s c a s e i s di s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m Johnson
. A f

t era ca r ef

ul compar i s on of t he de f e nd a nt ’ s tr i a l b r i e f

a nd the tr i a l j ud ge ’ s f i nd i ng s , we f

i nd tha t , whi l e the t r i al j udge ad o p ted s o m e se n tenc es, po rt ion s o f sen tenc e s a n d p h rase s v erb ati m from the d efe n d an t’ s tr i al br i ef

, the maj or i ty of

the f i ndi ngs ar e the tr i al court ’ s ow n. Si m i l art o Venton , in th is
c a s e , th e tr i a l j u d g e ’ s f

i n d i n g s o f

f a c tc o n s i s t e d m o s t l y o f

h i s o wn f

i n d i n g s . T h e r e f

o r e , we f i nd thatdef

er ent i al r evi ew of

the court ’ s f

i ndi ngs i s appr opr i at e. ¶1 6. The M TC A pr ov i de s t he ex c l us i ve r e medy f orPhi l l i ps i n h i s c l a i ms a ga i ns tthe M H P. M iss . C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -4 6 -7 (1 ) (R e v . 2 0 0 4 ). T h e L e g isla tu re o f th is s tate h a s e x p re ss ly d eterm ined that as a m att er o f pu b li c p o li cy , the s tat e a n d it s p o li ti ca l sub d ivisi o n s are im m u n e fro m su it d u e to a n y “ to rtio u s a c t o r o m iss io n ” b y a n y e m p lo y e e o f th e sta te o r its p o lit ica l su b d iv isio n s. H o w e v e r, th e re a re e x c e p tio n s. T h e M T C A sta tes in p e rtin e n t p a rt: ( 1) A go ve rnmen t a l e nt i ty a nd i t s e mpl oy e e s a c t i ng w i thi n the c ou r s e a nd s c o p e o f th e i re mp l o y me n to rd u t i e s s h a l l n o tb e l i a b l e f o ra n y c l a i m:

. . . . ( c) A r i s i ng outof any ac tor omi s s i on of

an empl oyee of

a governm ent al ent i ty engage d i n the per f orm ance orexec ut i on of dut i es oract i vi t i es r el at i ng t o pol i ce orf

i r e pr ot ect i on unl es s the em pl oyee ac t ed i n r eckl es s dis r egard of the s af et y and w el l

- bei ng of

any per s on notengaged i n cri m i nalact i vi t y at the t i m e of i nj ur y . . . .

### 9

M iss. C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -46 -9(1 )(c)(R ev . 2 0 0 4 ). ¶17. I n or der t o r ecove r i n thi s cas e, Phi l l i ps m us t pr ove by a pr eponder ance of evi dence thatthe def

endant s act ed i n r eckl es s di s r egar d of hi s s af ety a nd thathe , the cl ai m ant , w as not
e n g a g e d in c ri m in a l a c ti v ity a t th e tim e o f i n ju ry . Sim

ps on v. Ci t

y of Pi c ke ns , 761 So. 2d 8 5 5 , 8 5 9 (M iss. 2 0 0 0 ). ¶ 1 8
. It is u n d isp u ted th a t S e a ls a n d L itt le w e re a c tin g w ith in th e c o u rse a n d sc o p e o f th e ir d u ti es re lat ing to p o li ce p rotec ti o n . T h e q u esti o n is w h ethe r th ey ac ted in rec k less d isr eg ard of the safety o r w el l -bei ng of Ph i l l i ps. ¶19
. R eckles s dis regar d has been defi ned by this C ou rtas a hi gh er st an d ard than gross negl i gence , and i tembra ces w i l l f ul orw ant on conductw hi ch r equi r es know i ngl y and in te n tio n a lly d o in g a th in g o r w ro n g fu l a c t. Cit y of G r eenvil

le v. Jones , 925 So. 2d 106, 110 (M is s . 2 0 0 6 ); City o

f J a c kso n v. P o w e ll , 9 1 7 S o . 2 d 5 9 , 7 1 (M iss . 2 0 0 5 ); Col lins v. T a lla h a tch ie Co u n ty , 8 7 6 S o . 2 d 2 8 4 , 2 8 7 (M iss . 2 0 0 4 ). T h is C o u rt w ill lo o k to th e to tality
o f t h e c ir c u m s ta n c e s w h e n c o n s id e ri n g w h e th e r s o m e o n e a c te d in re c k le s s d is re g a rd
. City of E l lis vil le v. R ichar ds on , 9 1 3 S o . 2 d 9 7 3 , 9 7 8 -9 7 9 (M iss . 2 0 0 5 ); Cit y of Jacks on v. B r is ter , 8 3 8 S o . 2 d 2 7 4 , 2 7 9 (M iss . 2 0 0 3 ) ( fin d in g th a t o u r c a se la w re q u ire s th a t th e c irc u it ju d g e lo o k a t th e to tality o f th e c irc u m sta n c e s in d e ter m in in g w h e th e r th e o ffic e rs a c ted w ith
r eckl es s di s r egar d t o publ i c s af ety and t hathe bas e hi s f i ndi ngs on s ubs t ant i al , cr edi bl e, and
r eas onabl e evi dence )
. T hi s C ourthas hel d that“the natur e of t he of f i cer s ’ act i ons i s j udged
o n a n o b jec tiv e sta n d a rd w ith a ll th e fa c to rs th a t th e y w e re c o n fr o n te d w ith , tak in g in to
acc ountthe f

actthatthe of

f i cer s m us tm ake s pl i t - s econd de ci s i ons . ” P o w e ll , 917 S o. 2d at

### 10

72 ( ci t i ng G r aham v. Connor , 490 U
. S. 386, 396- 97, 109 S
. C t . 1 865, 104 L
. E d. 2d 443 ( 1989) ( ci t i ng T

e rr y v. O h io , 3 9 2 U
. S
. 1 , 2 0 -22 (19 6 8 )))
. “T h e ‘rea so n ab lene ss’ o f a part i cul arus e of force mustbe j udged f r om the per s pect i ve of

a r eas onabl e of

f i ceron the
s c e n e , ra th e r t h a n w ith th e 2 0 /2 0 v is io n o f h in d s ig h t.” G r aham , 490 U
. S. at392. ¶20. Phi l l i ps ar gues that the tr ooper s ’ f ai l ur e t o i dent i f

y hi s vehi cl e as the w r ong vehi cl e, fa ilu re to id e n tify h im a s th e w ro n g su sp e c t an d th e a c tio n s ta k e n a g a in st h im , res u lti n g in i nj ur i es , cons t i tut e r eckl es s di s r egar d. T he M H P respond s t hati t s of f i cer s act ed app ropri at el y u nd er the cir cum st ances. ¶21
. O n tw o previ ou s occ asio n s this C o u rth as c o n side red w h ethe r po li ce o ff i cers ’
m i s t aken arr es t s of

i ndi vi dual s r os e t o the l evel of r eckl es s di s r egar d. I n Fos terv. N oel , this C ourth el d thata pol i ce of f i cer ’ s f ai l ur e t o i nves t i gat e bef or e obt ai ni ng a w arr antf orthe p la in tif f’ s a rr e s t c o n s titu te d re c k le s s d is re g a rd
. Fos terv. N oel , 71 5 S o. 2d 17 4, 17 9 (M i ss. 1998)
. I n Fos ter , the m anag erof a J i tney J ungl e obs erved a bl ack man w ho had bee n sh o p li ft ing en ter a ca r w ith an o ther b lack m an an d rep o rte d to th e p o li ce the p erp etrator’s g e n d e r, ra c e , n a m e a n d th e ta g n u m b e r o f t h e c a r h e w a s d ri v in g . Fos ter , 715 So. 2d at175- 76. T he pol i ce of

f i cerf i l l ed outan af

f i davi tand obt ai ned a w arr antf orJ acque l i ne N oel , the
ow nerof the truc k wi th the t a g n umbe rgi ve n; ho w e ve r , ne i the rhe rna me no rhe rge nd er
m a tc h e d th e in fo rm a tio n p ro v id e d to th e o ff ic e r. I d. T he C our tf

ound thatthe of

f i ceract ed i n r eckl es s di s r egar d f

orthe pl ai nt i f

f’ s s af ety and w el l
- bei ng “by i ns ert i ng [ the pl ai nti ff’s ] name i n the af

f i davi tf oran arr estw arr antbas ed s ol el y upon a ca rt ag numberal though he knew that[the m anag er] s t at ed tw o bl ack men s t ol e the [ m er chandi s e]
. ” I d. at179. T he

### 11

C our tchar act er i zed the of f i cer ’ s act i ons as “an i nt ent i onal actt aken i n r eckl es s di s r egar d of the adve r s e ef

f ectupon [ the pl ai nt i f

f ] of the w r ongf

ul arr es tt o f

ol l ow ther ef

r om . ” I d. ¶22. E i ghtyear s l at er , i n Cit y of G r eenvil

le v. Jones , thi s C our t agai n cons i der ed w hether pol i ce of f i cer s a ct ed i n r eckl es s di s r egar d w hen they mi s t akenl y i dent i f i ed and a rr es t ed the p la in tif f. Jones , 925 So. 2d 106. T he C our thel d thatthe of f i cer ’ s a ct i ons i n thatcas e w er e,
a t m o s t, m e re n e g lig e n c e a n d d id n o t c o n s titu te re c k le s s d is re g a rd
. I d. a t121. I n Jones , in the cour s e of

i nves t i gat i ng a s er i es of bom b- thr eatcal l s , the pol i ce tr ace d the cal l s t o a cel l ul art el ephone s ervi ce provi der and r eques t ed f r om thatpr ovi derthe phone r ecor ds
a s s o c ia te d w ith th e n u m b e r f ro m w h ic h th e th re a ts w e re m a d e . I d. at107- 08. ¶23. W he n the pr ov i de r ’ s e m pl oyee e nt er ed the numbert o obt ai n the r ecor ds , the empl oyee tr a n s p o s e d tw o n u m b e rs a n d re tr ie v e d th e p la in tif f’ s p h o n e re c o rd s . I

d. a t1 0 8
. “ [ P ] a g e two
o f th e p ac k et rev ea led th at Jo n es o w n ed the c ell u lar p h o n e b ea ri n g the tran sp o sed n u m b er; how ever , pages 3- 6 of t he pack etr evea l ed thatthe f ourbom b thr eatcal l s had bee n pl ace d f r om the c e l l ul a rp ho ne b e a r i ng the u ntr a ns po s e d nu mber
. ” I d. T he pl ai nt i f

f as s ert ed that
a c a re fu l r e v ie w b y th e o ff ic e rs o f t h e p a c k a g e w o u ld h a v e re v e a le d th e m is ta k e . I d . at110. T he tr i al c ourtf

ound thatthe pol i ce conduct ed an “i nadequa t e” and “c ar el es s ” i nves t i gat i on. I d. at119. T hi s C ourtr ever s ed the tr i al cour t , fi nd i ng thatthe tr i al courtrul i ng w as “not
s uppor t ed by s ub s t ant i al , cr edi bl e and r eas onabl e evi dence
. ” I d. T he C our tdi s t i ngui s hed Jones f r o m Fos ter , and f

ound thatthe mostpl ai nt i f f s had pr oven w as “thatone orm or e ofT h e c ell ph o n e serv ice p rov ider w as d eterm ined t o be at fau ltan d p aid th e p lai n ti ff 5 dam ages. 

### 12 the [ G r e e nv i l l e ] o f

f i c e r s wer e n e gl i ge nt , thu s c a us i ng the Ci ty of Gr e e nv i l l e t o be exempt fr o m lia b ility u n d e r t h e M T C A .” I d . 5 ¶2 4. T he cas e s ub j udi ce i s e a s i l y d i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m Fos ter , w h ere the o ffi ce rs in ten tio n a lly d isre g a rd e d in fo rm a tio n th e y h a d b e e n g iv e n , res u lti n g in th e m ista k e n a rre st. Fo s te r , 715 So. 2d 174. U nl i ke Fos ter , t he evi dence i n t hi s cas e es t abl i s hes thatSeal s knew onl y the des cr i pt i on of

the vehicl e. W hen Seal s r eques t ed a de s cr i pt i on of the vehi cl e, he
w as i nf or med tha the w a s l oo ki ng f ora w hi t e For d Exp l or e ra nd tha tthe r e gi s tr a t i on i nf orm at i on w as unknow n. H e knew onl y the make, model , and col orof vehi cl e f

orw hi ch h e w as lo o k ing
. U n li k e the fac ts prese n ted in eith er Fos tero r Jones , the of f i cer s i nvol ved i n thi s cas e w er e r equi r ed t o make s pl i t - s econd deci s i ons w hi l e i nvol ved i n the hi gh- s peed p u rsu it o f a v io len t su sp e c t. ¶ 2 5
. P r e s e n t e d wi th c o n f l i c t i n g t e s t i mo n y , th e tr i a l c o u r t ma d e f i n d i n g s o f f

a c t wh i c h we consi dert o be s upport ed by s ubs t ant i al and cr edi bl e evi dence
. T he tr i al courtf ound that Seal s w as engage d i n a hi gh- s peed pur s ui t , w hi ch had att i m es r eac hed more than 100 mi l es per hou r, at t em pti ng t o sub du e a fl eei ng p erp etr at or of a vi olentcri m e. U nd er tho se
c irc u m sta n c e s, S e a ls re q u e ste d a d e sc rip tio n o f th e s u sp e c t’s v e h icle a n d lo o k e d fo r a v e h icle bas ed on the i nf

orm at i on he w as given. U naw ar e thatPhi l l i ps , a r es erve of f i cer , w as
a ttem p ti n g t o pa rt ici p ate i n th e p u rsuit in his pe rson al ve h icl e (also a w h it e S U V ), S e a ls pul l ed ov e ra v e hi c l e whi c h a pp e a r e d t o f i t the d e s c r i pt i on h e h a d be e n gi ve n, whi c h w asT he tr i al courtal s o f ound thatPhi l l i ps w as t aci t l y engage d i n “cr i m i nal act i vi ty” ( i
. e. 6 en g ag ing in em erg en cy ve h icular o p era ti o n s w ith o u t th e righ t equ ipm en t or v eh icl e, fai lure t o yi el d t o em er gency ve hi cl es , f ai l ur e t o compl y w i th an of f i cer ’ s tr af

f i c or der s , and r ef

us al t o compl y w i th an of

f i cer ’ s r eques t ) , buts i nce the i s s ue of r eckl es s di s r egar d i s di s pos i t i ve, w e nee d notaddr es s w hetherPhi l l i ps w as enga ged in cr i m i nal act i vi ty atthe t i m e he w as i nj ur ed. 

### 13 tra v e lin g v e ry n e a r to R a y b o rn a t th e tim e S e a ls w a s a p p ro a c h in g R a y b o rn to a ss ist h im in the pur s ui t . Seal s kne w thatthe s us pecthad f ai l ed t o yi el d t o R ayborn, w ho w as att empt i ng t o pul l the s us pectover . A f t erthe s t op, Phi l l i ps , by hi s ow n admi s s i on, n ei t her i dent i f i ed h im self no r co m p li ed w ith S ea ls’ s req u ests d u ri n g take d o w n an d h an d cu ffi n g . T h e tri al co u rt
c o n c lu d e d th a t P h ill ip s w a s n o n c o m p lian t an d re sis ted a rre st. ¶2 6. A cc e pt i ng the tr i a l c ou r t ’ s f a c tua l f i nd i ng s , w e r e vi e w the of f i c e r s ’ a c t i ons “on an obj ect i ve s t andar d w i th al l the f act ors thatthey w er e conf r ont ed w i th, ” and f

i nd thatthe of f i cer s di d notacti n r eckl es s di s r egar d. A l though the of f i cerm i s t akenl y i dent i f

i ed Phi l l i ps
as the s us pect , Phi l l i ps f ai l ed t o pr ove thatSeal s and L i t t l e ac t ed i n any w ay otherthan
r eas onabl y underthe ci r cumst ance s . Phi l l i ps di d notm eethi s burden of s how i ng by a prepon derance o f the ev i den ce that Seal s i ntent i on al l y d isr eg arded i nform at i on and thu s, act ed i n r eckl es s di s r egar d w hen he mi s i dent i f i ed Phi l l i ps orhi s vehi cl e. 6 CO NC L US I ON ¶27. B as ed on the tr i al court ’ s f i ndi ngs of

f act , w hich w e f

i nd t o be s upport ed by
su b sta n tia l, cr e d ib le, a n d re a so n a b le e v id e n c e , w e fin d th a t th e tro o p e rs a c ted re a so n a b ly
u n d e r th e circ u m sta n c e s w ith w h ich th e y w e re c o n fro n ted . T h e C o u rt fu rth e r fin d s th e y d id notacti n r eckl es s di s r egar d of the s af ety and w el l
- bei ng of

Phi l l i ps . T hus , pur s uantt o the

### 14

pr ovi s i ons of

the M T C A , the M i s s i s s i ppi D epartm entof Publ i c Saf

ety and the M i s si ssi ppi H ig h w ay P atrol are ex em p t from l iabili ty i n th is ca se. T h e jud g m en t o f th e tr ial c o u rt is af f i rm ed. ¶28. AF F I RM ED . S M I TH, C. J . , W AL LE R AND D I AZ , P. J J . , EA S LE Y, CARL S ON AND DI CKI NS ON J J . , CONCUR. GRAVE S , J . , CONC URS I N RE S UL T ONL Y. RA ND OL P H, J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG .