Palm-Egle v. Briggs

545 P.3d 828

2024 WY 31

Deborah PALM-EGLE, Appellant (Plaintiff),

v.Jon BRIGGS, individually; and Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation, Appellees (Defendants).

S-23-0100

Supreme Court of Wyoming,

March 26, 2024

W.R.A.P. 11 Certified Question from the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming, The Honorable Scott W. Skavdahl, Judge

Representing Appellant: Gary L. Shockey, Gary L. Shockey, PC, Casper, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: Bridget L. Hill, Attorney General; Mark A. Klaassen, Deputy Attorney General; Debra Hulett, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Argument by Ms. Hulett.

Before FOX, C.J., KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, GRAY, and FENN, JJ.

BOOMGAARDEN, Justice.

[¶1] The United States District Court for the District of Wyoming certified two questions to us regarding the duty of care owed by law enforcement officers to suspects when conducting an investigation. We conclude, consistent with our precedent, that law enforcement officers acting within the scope of their duties owe a common law duty to the suspect in that investigation to investigate as reasonable peace officers of ordinary prudence under like circumstances, and that such officers are entitled to assert qualified immunity.

ISSUE

[¶2] We agreed to answer two certified questions pursuant to W.R.A.P. 11:

1. Does a law enforcement officer acting within the scope of his or her duties as such owe a duty of care to the suspect(s) in a criminal investigation to conduct that investigation in a non-negligent manner?

2. If the answer to the first question is yes, is the law enforcement officer entitled to assert qualified immunity under Wyoming law?

FACTS

[1, 2] [¶3] When answering certified questions of law through W.R.A.P. 11, we rely upon the facts presented by the certifying court. Miech v. Sheridan Cnty., 2002 WY 178, ¶ 2, 59 P.3d 143, 144 (Wyo. 2002) (citing Kaycee Land & Livestock v. Flahive, 2002 WY 73, ¶ 3, 46 P.3d 323, ¶ 3 (Wyo. 2002)). Our answer to certified questions is not dependent on factfinding. Skoric v. Park Cnty. Circuit Ct., 2023 WY 59A, ¶ 3, 532 P.3d 667, 668 (Wyo. 2023); B & W Glass, Inc. v. Weather Shield Mfg., Inc., 829 P.2d 809, 812 (Wyo. 1992). As such, we summarize the facts the federal district court provided us as context for our analysis.

[¶4] In August 2019, Wyoming Department of Criminal Investigation Task Force Officer John Briggs received a tip about a suspected marijuana growing operation near Albin, Wyoming. Deborah Palm-Egle lives on that property, and she owns shares in the company that owns the property. Officer Briggs and another law enforcement officer went onto the property on November 1, 2019 to try to talk to someone but no one was home. They observed a barn and a greenhouse on the property. A window on the barn was broken, and Officer Briggs observed and photographed a green leafy substance hanging inside the bam. Officer Briggs returned to his office and began drafting an affidavit to support a search warrant for certain items and persons at the Palm-Egle property. He also called the Wyoming Department of Agriculture to determine whether it had issued any licenses to grow hemp in Wyoming. The agency informed Officer Briggs it had not and there was a moratorium in effect for hemp cultivation in Wyoming. Officer Briggs then requested a search warrant, which a circuit judge issued.

[¶5] On the morning of November 4, 2019, Officer Briggs and other law enforcement officers executed the warrant and seized approximately 327,600 grams of plant material from the bam. Two individuals were at the Palm-Egle property when law enforcement arrived. During the search, one of those individuals provided two laboratory-issued certificates of analysis, prepared for the High Altitude Hemp Company and dated September 12, 2019, which showed that two, plant samples were tested and had a Total Delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) level of 0.0 percent.¹ Law enforcement notified the Wyoming Crime Lab of the two certificates and provided the certificates to Officer Briggs.

[¶6] On November 12, 2019, law enforcement sent ten samples of the seized plant material to a lab for testing. In February 2020, the lab provided the test results to law enforcement. Those results showed a Total Delta-9 THC level slightly more than 0.3% in nine of the ten samples—the statutory threshold for the plant material to be considered marijuana instead of hemp.² In April 2020, the State filed an information alleging four marijuana-related offenses: three felonies and one misdemeanor. The Information was accompanied by an affidavit of probable cause, prepared by Officer Briggs, which identified the nine test results dated in February but did not mention the two certificates of analysis provided to law enforcement during the search.

[¶7] A probable cause hearing occurred on August 6, 2020, The presiding circuit court judge declined to bind over the three felony offenses, noting that Ms. Palm-Egle had been held out as an expert in hemp, was instrumental in passing legislation legalizing hemp in Wyoming, and that the low levels of THC in the plant material—dose to 0.3 percent—reflected an intent to produce hemp. The circuit court found no probable cause for the intent elements of the charged offenses, dedined to bind the matter over to district court, and dismissed all counts.

[¶8] In April 2022, Ms. Palm-Egle filed a civil action in state district court against Officer Briggs, the Department of Criminal Investigation, and several other parties. Ms. Palm-Egle alleged violations of her constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and a variety of tort claims.³ Defendants timely removed the case to federal district court and then moved to dismiss. The federal district court dismissed several of the claims and parties. The remaining claims proceeded to summary judgment.

[¶9] At summary judgment, the federal district court withheld ruling on Ms. Palm-Egle’s state law negligence claims, "finding the existence of a legal duty of law enforcement officers to conduct criminal investigations in a non-negligent manner is both an unsettled question of Wyoming state law and potentially dispositive of Palm-Egle’s negligence claim." According to the district court, this "lawsuit arises out of the events and circumstances surrounding Briggs’ investigation" and Ms. Palm-Egle alleged several flaws in Officer Briggs’s investigation that could amount to a breach of duty. One of the facts presented to the district court included an admission by Officer Briggs that he "could have investigated further and developed more evidence that [the crop] was being grown as hemp and not as marijuana." We are not, however, provided with the Complaint or other record materials which may articulate the alleged negligence and Ms. Palm-Egle’s injuries. Nor did either party supplement the record pursuant to W.R.A.P 11.

[¶10] Certification to this Court followed the summary judgment hearing, with the certified issues raised sua sponte by the federal district court.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[3] [¶11] Certified questions are questions of law reviewed de novo. State v. Mares, 2014 WY 126, ¶ 10, 335 P.3d 487, 493 (Wyo. 2014) (citing Smith v. State, 2013 WY 122, ¶ 9, 311 P.3d 132, 135 (Wyo. 2013)).

Certified questions are governed by W.R.A.P. 11. When there is no controlling precedent to a question of law, Rule 11.01 allows this Court to answer pure questions of law " ‘which may be determinative of the cause’ pending in the certifying court." The role of this Court in answering a certified question does not include fact finding. Certainty of facts is not required to answer a pure question of law.

Sinclair Wyo. Ref Co. v. Ltd., 2021 WY 65, ¶ 10, 486 P.3d 990, 994 (Wyo. 2021) (citations omitted).

DISCUSSION

I. Law enforcement officers owe a duty of care to criminal suspects to investigate as reasonable peace officers of ordinary prudence under like circumstances.

[4–6] [¶12] The first question is posed to us as one sounding in traditional negligence, as "potentially dispositive of Palm-Egle’s negligence claim." To maintain a negligence claim, a plaintiff must prove (1) the defendant had a duty of care to protect the plaintiff from injury; (2) the defendant breached that duty; (3) the plaintiff suffered actual injury or loss; and (4) the defendant’s breach of duty caused that injury or loss. E.g., Andersen v. Two Dot Ranch, Inc., 2002 WY 105, ¶ 11, 49 P.3d 1011, 1014 (Wyo. 2002) (citation omitted). Whether a duty exists is a question of law for the court to decide. Id. If there is no duty, the claim of negligence cannot survive. Id.

[¶13] We have long held that law enforcement officers, acting within the scope of their duties, have a common law duty to act as reasonable peace officers of ordinary prudence under like circumstances. We reiterated this rule in the recent case of Cornella v. City of Lander, 2022 WY 9, ¶ 27, 502 P.3d 381, 387 (Wyo. 2022). In that case, a mother found a live bat in her son’s room and called animal control, which was a division of the city’s police department. Id. at ¶ 3, 502 P.3d at 383. The city’s animal control officers, who were also peace officers, collected the bat but lost it during transport and could not test it for rabies. Id. The family was advised to get rabies vaccines as a precautionary measure, and their resulting medical bills totaled more than $80,000. Id. at ¶¶ 4 -5. The family filed a negligence claim against the city and its animal control officers through the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act. Id. at ¶ 1, 502 P.3d at 382. The trial court dismissed the claims at summary judgment, but we reversed and remanded. Id. In pur discussion of the trial court’s errors related to duty in the tort of negligence, we stated:

we have long held that "peace officers acting within the scope of their duties have a common law duty to act as reasonable peace officers of ordinary prudence under like circumstances," Dunean [v. Town of Jackson], 903 P.2d [548,] 552 [(Wyo. 1995)] (

...