Deuser Ex Rel. Sellers v. Vecera
139 F.3d 1190 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) shields the government from liability for claims arising from a government employee's actions when those actions involve an element of judgment or choice and are grounded in considerations of public policy.
Facts:
- On July 4, 1986, Larry Deuser was attending the Veiled Prophet Fair, held on the grounds of the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial, a national park in St. Louis.
- National Park Rangers David Vecera and Edward Bridges observed an intoxicated Deuser grabbing women and urinating in public.
- The rangers arrested Deuser, who was argumentative.
- After conferring with their chief ranger, and discovering that the overwhelmed St. Louis police were unable or unwilling to process the arrest, the rangers decided to release Deuser.
- The rangers released Deuser in a parking lot away from the park grounds, leaving him alone without money or transportation.
- Sometime later that night, Deuser wandered onto an interstate highway where he was struck and killed by a motorist.
- An autopsy revealed Deuser had a blood alcohol level of 0.214 at the time of his death.
Procedural Posture:
- Tina Marie Sellers and others (appellants) brought claims, including one under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), against federal and municipal actors in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
- In a previous appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the defendants on other federal claims, remanding the FTCA and a state law claim.
- On remand, the U.S. government filed a motion to dismiss the FTCA claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
- The District Court granted the government's motion, holding the claim was barred by the discretionary function exception, and declined to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim.
- The appellants appealed the dismissal of their FTCA claim to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the discretionary function exception of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) bar a lawsuit against the United States when federal park rangers exercise their judgment to terminate an arrest and release an individual, a decision grounded in social, economic, and political policy considerations?
Opinions:
Majority - Bowman, Circuit Judge
Yes. The discretionary function exception of the FTCA bars the lawsuit because the rangers' conduct was a permissible exercise of policy judgment. To determine if the exception applies, the court uses a two-part test. First, the conduct must be discretionary, meaning it involves an element of judgment or choice. Although a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) dictated mandatory steps for processing an arrest, the court found that the initial decision to terminate an arrest is akin to the discretionary decision to make an arrest in the first place, a choice not mandated by any policy. The VP Fair Operations Handbook explicitly gave rangers wide discretion and urged them to make arrests only as a 'last resort.' Second, the judgment must be of the kind the exception was designed to shield, meaning it is based on considerations of social, economic, or political policy. The court found the rangers' decision to release Deuser served the social policy of protecting other fairgoers, the economic policy of preserving scarce law enforcement resources during a major event, and the political policy of cooperating with the lead local law enforcement agency. Because both prongs of the test were met, the rangers' actions fall within the discretionary function exception, and the government is immune from suit.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of the FTCA's discretionary function exception to on-the-ground law enforcement decisions. It establishes that even where specific post-arrest procedures are mandatory, the antecedent decision to terminate an arrest can still be a protected discretionary act. The ruling reinforces that courts will grant significant deference to law enforcement judgments that balance public safety, resource allocation, and inter-agency cooperation, especially during large-scale public events. This precedent makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to sue the federal government for the alleged negligence of its officers when their actions can be framed as policy-based judgment calls.
Unlock the full brief for Deuser Ex Rel. Sellers v. Vecera