Bewley v. Town of Speedway, et al., Court of Appeals of Indiana (Oct. 30, 2023) - K9 Use of Force Case Review
Facts
On March 1, 2019, an officer of the Speedway Police Department, Officer Turpin, responded to a burglary call. The officer was a trained K-9 handler.
Meanwhile, Jerry Bewley (a delivery driver) arrived at a customer’s house in Speedway. While Bewley and the customer were conducting the delivery transaction on the porch, they heard sirens and saw blue/red lights from police in pursuit of a suspected stolen vehicle.
The fleeing vehicle crashed. Some individuals fled the crash scene. One suspect ran between the customer’s house and a neighboring house. Officer Turpin released his K-9 unit (Tom) to pursue the suspect.
Instead of tracking the suspect, the K-9 ran toward Bewley and bit him, clamping onto his leg until Turpin intervened to force the dog released. Bewley was injured and transported to the hospital.
Bewley and his wife (Deborah) filed suit against the Town of Speedway, the SPD, and Officer Turpin. Their complaint included a claim that Turpin negligently released/handled the K-9 and that the Town was liable for the actions of its agent/officer.
Over time, the SPD and Turpin were dismissed from the lawsuit.
The Town moved for summary judgment, contending it was immune under the Indiana Tort Claims Act. The trial court granted that motion.
Issues Presented on Appeal
The primary issue was whether the Town of Speedway was entitled to immunity under the Indiana Tort Claims Act from the negligence claim arising out of the release of the K-9 by Officer Turpin.
In particular, the Bewleys argued that the Town should not have immunity for the allegedly negligent act of releasing the K-9, contending that such use is not protected under the statutory immunity provision.
Court of Appeals’ Holding & Reasoning
The Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the Town, holding that the Town was immune under the Indiana Tort Claims Act.
The court concluded that the act of deploying the K-9 unit fell within a protected function under police operations. Thus, the Town was immune from tort claims arising from those operations.
The court emphasized that the Bewleys failed to show a genuine dispute of material fact that could overcome immunity under the Act.
In essence, even if one accepts the version of facts the Bewleys asserted, the law required dismissal because the immunity statute operated to shield the municipality.
Key Legal Principles & Significance
Municipal Immunity under Indiana’s Tort Claims Act
The case highlights the broad protections afforded to municipalities under Indiana’s Tort Claims Act, particularly in the context of policing/law enforcement. The Act often provides that governmental entities are immune from liability for discretionary or operational decisions made in their public safety roles, unless exceptions apply.Discretion vs. Negligence in Police Action
The decision demonstrates how courts may treat certain law-enforcement decisions (e.g., deployment of K-9 units) as falling within functions that are immune, even when negligence is alleged.Burden in Summary Judgment / Immunity Context
The case illustrates the high standard plaintiffs must meet when challenging immunity via summary judgment—demonstrating disputed facts and showing that the alleged conduct falls outside immunity exceptions.K-9 Deployment and Risk to Third Parties
While K-9 deployment is a common law enforcement practice, this case highlights the tension between the utility of policing and the harm to innocent bystanders, as well as how immunity doctrines can limit recourse for injured third parties.
