Opinion ID: 1188053
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: the specially concurring opinion

Text: The specially concurring opinion suggests that the holding in this case is at odds with the basis for the district court's decision. The district court found a qualified immunity. The basis of that finding was that the officers had acted reasonably and in good faith. The specially concurring opinion suggests that we should adopt a rule that there is a qualified immunity for actions by law enforcement officers which are determined to be reasonable and accomplished in good faith. If reasonable means the exercise of due care, then perhaps the district court found the officers not negligent either because they acted with due care or because their actions were not the proximate cause of the accident. If reasonable means the actions of the officers were lawful according to § 31-5-106, W.S. 1977, that would also involve a finding that they acted with due care. Such a finding, in either case, would be in conformance with our holding in this case. The specially concurring opinion finally questions whether we considered the exception to immunity found in § 1-39-112, W.S. 1977, Cum.Supp. 1985. That statute was expressly considered in the majority opinion. To hold as the specially concurring opinion suggests would be to readopt governmental immunity for law enforcement officers contrary to the express enactment by the legislature of the Governmental Claims Act. For all the reasons stated, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. THOMAS, C.J., filed a specially concurring opinion. ROSE, J., filed a dissenting opinion.