Court Opinion

ID: 9707240
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 02:06:16.23031+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:29.632577
License: Public Domain

DeBRULER, Justice,
dissenting.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment with respect to the counties and the county commissioners, but reversed the summary judgment in favor of the County Sheriffs. I agree with that opinion.
First, the County Sheriffs are not entitled to immunity under the mental health statute, 1.C. § 16-14-9.1-12. This statute is written to facilitate the delivery of healthcare to those in need of it, by encouraging private persons who are witnesses to such need to come forward and participate in necessary proceedings, and by lifting the restraint of fear of groundless lawsuits from those who are within the healthcare industry. It does not grant immunity to sheriffs, judges, and other trained public officials who are charged with the duty to act in furtherance of the process and who are unlikely to be restrained in the fulfillment of that duty by groundless lawsuits.
Second, common law judicial immunity should not be stretched to cover these particular circumstances. -I would restrict judicial immunity for peace officers to occasions when they are in manner, means, and time, executing express written orders of a judge, or when carrying out direct oral orders of a judge in the environs of the court itself.
Third, as a matter of common law, I would recognize in these cireumstances, on behalf of law enforcement officials, a new defense of good faith or one of qualified immunity.