Court Opinion

ID: 9780880
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 03:10:06.477635+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:34:16.031171
License: Public Domain

STEELMAN, Judge,
concurring in the result.
I concur in the result of this case. The exceptions to official immunity have gradually expanded over the years. Epps v. Duke Univ., 122 N.C. App. 198, 204, 468 S.E.2d 846, 851 (1996). This Court has explicitly recognized five: “A public officer ... ‘is shielded from liability unless he engaged in discretionary actions which were *286allegedly: (1) corrupt; (2) malicious; (3) outside of and beyond the scope of his duties; (4) in bad faith; or (5) willful and deliberate.’ ” Smith v. Jackson Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 168 N.C. App. 452, 468, 608 S.E.2d 399, 411 (2005) (quoting Reid v. Roberts, 112 N.C. App. 222, 224, 435 S.E.2d 116, 199 (1993)). I am not persuaded that the lack of probable cause to issue an arrest warrant, standing alone, is sufficient to negate immunity. Cf Schlossberg v. Goins, 141 N.C. App. 436, 446, 540 S.E.2d 49, 56 (2000) (stating that a plaintiff cannot defeat public official immunity by alleging “reckless indifference”). I would affirm on this basis.