noting that scope of "adoption or enforcement of a law" in Ind.Code § 34-13-3-3(8) "is not limited to traditional law enforcement activities such as the arrest or pursuit of suspects by police"
How later courts described this case
- noting that scope of "adoption or enforcement of a law" in Ind.Code § 34-13-3-3(8) "is not limited to traditional law enforcement activities such as the arrest or pursuit of suspects by police"
- reasoning that the Court will strive to harmonize two statutes addressing the same subject matter
- interpreting immunity provision of the Tort Claims Act
- city where officer drove squad car at night without using headlights not immune under “failure to enforce law”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
GIVAN, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion in this case. I disagree with the observation of the majority that the case of Seymour Nat’l. Bank v. State (1981), Ind., 422 N.E.2d 1223 , placed an improper interpretation upon the law enforcement section of the Indiana Tort Claims Act, Ind.Code § 34-4-16.5-3(7). As stated in Seymour, the language of the statute is clear. Whether the members of this Court disagree with that language, is beside the point. It is improper for this Court to rewrite the statute and to attribute meaning to that statute which is clearly not there.
The opinion in the majority is an excellent argument to be used in the legislature to bring about a change in the language of the statute in order that law enforcement officers might be responsible for the acts described by the majority opinion. Seymour was decided correctly and followed the clear and unambiguous language of the statute.
I would deny transfer in this case.
SHEPARD, C.J., concurs.