Opinion ID: 2797930
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Wyoming Constitutional Claim

Text: Stone asserts the defendants committed an unreasonable seizure in violation of the Wyoming Constitution, giving rise to a claim for damages. The district court rejected this claim on the ground that Stone presented no authority demonstrating a waiver of governmental immunity. The Wyoming Governmental Claims Act waives sovereign or governmental immunity only for certain enumerated torts. Harbel v. Wintermute, 883 P.2d 359, 363 (Wyo. 1994); accord State, Dep’t of Corr. v. Watts, 2008 WY 19 ¶ 20, 177 P.3d 793, 798 (Wyo. 2008) (“[T]he general rule in Wyoming is that the government is immune from liability, and, unless a claim falls within one of the statutory exceptions to governmental immunity, it will be barred.” (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted)). Stone relies on Wyo. Stat. § 1-39-112, which states, “[a] governmental entity is liable for damages resulting from tortious conduct of peace officers while acting within the scope of their duties.” He contends the Wyoming Constitution’s guarantee of the right to be secure against unreasonable seizure provides him a cognizable claim for damages, and an assault and battery by a peace officer is “contextually different” from an assault and battery committed by a non-officer. Aplt. Br. at 40. 2 The “Claims Act did not create new causes of action against the State of Wyoming, its employees, agencies or political subdivisions; rather, it statutorily affirmed 2 As noted above, Stone has abandoned on appeal his state-law claim for assault and battery. -4- the idea that those parties generally enjoy sovereign immunity from civil liability with the exception of certain conduct for which that immunity is specifically waived.” Cooney v. Park Cnty., 792 P.2d 1287, 1299 (Wyo. 1990), vacated on other grounds sub nom. Cooney v. White, 501 U.S. 1201 (1991) (emphasis added). Stone points to no specific waiver of immunity for his claim of “violation of guarantees against unreasonable seizure,” Aplt. Br. at 35, nor does he provide any authority for his argument that § 1-39-112 encompasses unconstitutional conduct. Moreover, the Wyoming Supreme Court has held that civil rights claims based on the Wyoming Constitution fail for lack of implementing legislation. May v. Se. Wyo. Mental Health Ctr., 866 P.2d 732, 737 (Wyo. 1993). Because Stone’s claim does not fall within one of the statutorily authorized exceptions to governmental immunity, the district court correctly concluded this claim was barred.