Opinion ID: 2263558
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: police pursuits and the governmental tort claims act

Text: ¶ 7 The State argues that it enjoys absolute immunity for the actions of its officers while engaged in police pursuits under several exemptions to liability enumerated in section 155 of the GTCA. Precedent, however, holds to the contrary. ¶ 8 Exemption 4 of section 155 retains the immunity of the State or a political subdivision for a claim resulting from the [a]doption or enforcement of or failure to adopt or enforce a law, whether valid or invalid, including, but not limited to, any statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, rule, regulation or written policy. Similarly, exemption 5 extends immunity to the [p]erformance of or the failure to exercise or perform any act or service which is in the discretion of the state or political subdivision or its employees. Finally, exemption 6 exempts from liability [c]ivil disobedience, riot, insurrection or rebellion, or the failure to provide, or the method of providing, police, law enforcement or fire protection. ¶ 9 The State argues that these exemptions collectively or individually prohibit any claims against law agencies when a fleeing suspect injures an innocent bystander. Under the State's view, any discretionary decision made by a law enforcement agency or its employee in order to provide police protection is not subject to an action in tort. The State reads the exemptions much too broadly. ¶ 10 This Court has recognized that [a]lmost all acts of government employees involve some element of choice and judgment. Nguyen v. State, 1990 OK 21, ¶ 4, 788 P.2d 962, 964. Therefore, the government retains its immunity with respect to formulation of policy, but is subject to liability for routine decisions and daily implementation of the policy or planning level decisions. Id., ¶ 5, 788 P.2d at 965. Statutory immunity for providing protective services (police or fire) is not co-extensive with a blanket immunity from common-law negligence for carrying out law enforcement duties.  Salazar, 1999 OK 20, ¶ 27, 976 P.2d at 1066. Negligent performance of a law enforcement function is not shielded from immunity under the GTCA. Id. ¶ 11 Exemptions 4, 5, and 6, when read together with this Court's explanations, define clearly the scope of statutory immunity concerning law enforcement. The State and its political subdivisions enjoy immunity for the choice to adopt or enforce a law, the formulation of law enforcement policy, and the method by which policy is implemented. The exemptions do not apply to tortious acts of government servants in the daily implementation of policy. The blanket immunity the State seeks concerning police pursuits does not exist in Oklahoma's statutory law or jurisprudence. [2]