State Supreme Court Says Trooper Should Be Shielded From Lawsuit

Last updated Friday, April 27, 2007 8:13 PM CDT in News

    The Associated Press

    WEST MEMPHIS -- The Arkansas Supreme Court says a state police trooper accused of groping a suspect should be immune from a lawsuit because there wasn't enough evidence to show he broke the law.

    The court also found that the trooper should be shielded from such a suit because the alleged incident happened on the job, and state employees can't be sued in that capacity.

    Arkansas State Police Trooper Dennis Simons was sued after the passenger of a car he'd pulled over accused him of groping her during the traffic stop. Simons filed a response saying he was immune from the suit because of a state statute shielding state employees from lawsuits except for "malicious acts or omissions."

    Phillips County Judge L.T. Simes II refused to dismiss the suit. On Thursday, the state Supreme Court overturned Simes' decision, saying the plaintiff hadn't shown that Simons violated any laws.

    "Her conclusion that this search was sexual in nature is nothing more than that, a conclusory allegation," Associate Justice Donald L. Corbin wrote in the unanimous opinion. "As such, it is insufficient to establish that Simons consciously violated any existing law."

    Reader Comments (11 comment(s))


    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsibility of their authors. The Morning News does not review comments before their publication, nor do we guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by our comment policy. If you see a comment that violates our policy, please notify the web editor.

    OH NO WAY wrote on Apr 27, 2007 8:45 PM:

    " Under no circumstances should this officer be immune from being sued for sexual harassment. If the officer groped the subject, he indeed sexually harassed the subject, and the subject probaly felt like a low=life scum (did anyone see the movie Crash?). Why should police officers, Judges, DCFS caseworkers, Probation/Parole offficers, Juvenile Probation officers, etc. be immune from the same conduct expected of John Q. Citizen? Why should they be placed above the law? If an officer, or an officer of the court violates someone in any way, they should have to answer to the same laws as everyone else. This is why we have cases like Brian Bergthold's case. "

    Did you read, wrote on Apr 27, 2007 8:48 PM:

    " There wasn't evidence proofing the case This is real life, not a movie, please keep fiction away from the blog. "

    question wrote on Apr 27, 2007 9:28 PM:

    " The court also found that the trooper should be shielded from such a suit because the alleged incident happened on the job, and state employees can't be sued in that capacity. Does this give public officials free rein? "

    LWood wrote on Apr 28, 2007 1:25 AM:

    " I think Ark should establish a totally civilian review board for Ark State Police. After shooting and killing a perfectly harmless mentally handicapped man from Springdale, and the numerous stories of being go-betweens for Clinton and girlfriends, and now this charge for which there should have been video tape of the actions, to preserve the good reputation of most of our state troopers and totally civilian board of review would be helpful. "

    Problem wrote on Apr 28, 2007 5:15 AM:

    " Nobody should be immune to the law. All laws govern all people equally, no exceptions. Thing about any law enforcement is that if they are on patrol, almost every single car now has video. Now if a person files suit, the person that files has burden of proof, if they can not prove their case with hard evidence then it should be thrown out and that should be the same for state and federal as it is for John Q. Public. When it comes to law enforcement there is an "acceptable" level of force that is and should be allowed for them to make an arrest to go beyond that, well if there is evidence to support then hey. Just my opinion. "

    Woman wrote on Apr 28, 2007 12:16 PM:

    " Either this article does not say enough or the officer is not saying enough. The proof lies with the person does it not. So what we are saying....is their word against the other persons word??? WOW how many times have we heard that. Now it boils down to Who is telling the truth. Just so unfair............Seen it to many times in my life! "

    Orville wrote on Apr 29, 2007 7:33 AM:

    " Under this logic, state agency officials would also be immune from lawsuits for groping women's paychecks and paying them less than men for equal work? Do you think that judges will just take their word for it that there are other factors besides illegal sex discrimination that result in such wage differentials? Probably. "

    It seems . . . wrote on Apr 29, 2007 8:48 AM:

    " My impression from the article was that the officer cannot be sued through the State Police, but that he CAN be sued personally. I assume the purpose is to protect the State Police's pocketbook. I think the trooper can still be sued. he individually. "

    Very Very Interesting! Still love government? Why wrote on Apr 29, 2007 8:51 AM:

    " Murder, rape, kidnapping,sodomy,treason,and arson are illegal unless you're a parasitic bureaucrate who spend their working hours using threats of or use of physical violence against our relatives, neighbors. To protect the people in our communities we need many false arrest, false imprisonment lawsuits filed against Police officer. Make them pay for the violations of your right. "

    To It seems wrote on Apr 29, 2007 9:20 AM:

    " Yes the Trooper can be sued individually as no Person is above the law. Sueing these rights violaters will not only fattenen your wallet but will protect your friends and relatives from government crimes against ''We the People''Cha Ching (smiles) "

    E.S.C.-1 wrote on Apr 29, 2007 1:31 PM:

    " My question is where is the VIDEO! All State Police Vehicles have video camera's running at all times. So did this officer bring her to the front of his car like they are suppose to do and get everything on video? Or did he not ? If there is no video, my guess is that the officer was planning against this woman, who could have been one of our wives, or our daughter, or grand daughter!!! And if he did it, CHARGE HIM, JUST LIKE THEY WOULD CHARGE YOU OR I WITH A SEXUAL ASSULT CHARGE.....IS THERE VIDEO PROOF ????? CAN ANYONE ANSWER THAT QUESTION ABOUT THIS CASE ??????? Have a great day guy & girls...... "


    *Member ID:
    *Password:
      Forgot Your Password?
     

    Not already registered?
    Register Now

    E-Edition


    Click here to get it all!

    Sponsors

















    Media Partners

    Fayetteville Free Weekly

    Stephens Media

    Arkansas News Bureau

    La Prensa

    Hawgs Illustrated

    Washington County Newspaper

    McDonald County Press

    KUAF

    Channels 40/29