Court Opinion

ID: 9603724
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:09:19.646842+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:13.509379
License: Public Domain

Rose, C. J.,
with whom Shearing, J., joins,
dissenting:
The decision to arrest is discretionary; but once an arrest is made, a LVMPD officer is required to handcuff the person arrested for transportation. Maturi has sued for his improper handcuffing by the officers. This was not a discretionary act and the granting of summary judgment pursuant to NRS 41.032 was improper. Therefore, I dissent from the majority opinion.
The LVMPD Manual requires that all persons arrested be handcuffed for transportation. Section 5/202.01 of the LVMPD Manual states:
1. Handcuffs
Except under extraordinary situations approved by a superior, no member will permit a prisoner to enter a Department vehicle without first being handcuffed. Prisoners in police vehicles will be handcuffed behind the back, unless impractical or impossible due to prisoner obesity, handicap, or other reason. Special restraints will not be used unless approved by a supervisor.
(Emphasis added.)
While an initial decision might be considered discretionary, the subsequent performance of a duty in which the officer is left no choice is not discretionary. This court has held that:
NRS 41.032(2) might not provide immunity from liability for acts even though they had their origin in discretionary acts. . . . Although a given act involved the exercise of discretion and was thus immune from liability, negligence in the operational phase of a decision would subject the State, its agencies, and employees to liability.
Hagblom v. State Dir. of Motor Vehicles, 93 Nev. 599, 604, 571 P.2d 1172, 1175 (1977).
*311As we stated in Hagblom, “ ‘[i]n a close case we must favor a waiver of immunity . . . .'" Id. at 602-03, 571 P.2d at 1175 (quoting State v. Silva, 86 Nev. 911, 914, 478 P.2d 591, 593 (1970)). The district court had difficulty with this decision and clearly indicated that this was a close case. Following the directives in our prior cases, summary judgment in favor of the LVMPD should have been denied and the case tried.