In a landmark decision earlier this year, the Wyoming Supreme Court became the first in the nation to recognize that citizens have the right to sue police officers for negligent investigations, Wyo File reports.
The 3-2 ruling established that law enforcement officers have a “common law duty to act as reasonable peace officers of ordinary prudence under like circumstances.”
However, this right may soon be revoked. The Wyoming Legislature’s Joint Judiciary Committee recently voted 8-6 to sponsor a bill that would remove the public’s ability to hold police accountable for negligent investigations. The proposed measure is expected to be one of the most closely watched and hotly debated issues in the upcoming legislative session.
At the heart of the controversy is a question of accountability: Should police officers be shielded from lawsuits for botched investigations, or should citizens have the right to seek redress when they are harmed by law enforcement errors?
The Wyoming Supreme Court’s ruling was rooted in a 2019 incident involving Debra Palm-Egle and her son, Joshua Egle, who own a farm in Albin, Wyoming. Acting on a tip from a “reliable source,” agents from the Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI) raided the farm, seizing 722 pounds of what they believed to be marijuana.
The agents, dressed in tactical gear and armed with rifles, detained two farm employees and their two young children. Despite being presented with test results showing that the plants contained less than 0.3% tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) — the legal threshold for hemp under Wyoming law — DCI seized the crop and later filed multiple felony charges against the Egles and their employees.
Palm-Egle’s attorney argued that the agents had failed to properly investigate the case before moving forward with the raid and criminal charges. A judge eventually dismissed all charges, finding there was no probable cause for the prosecution. Palm-Egle later filed a lawsuit against the lead DCI investigator, Jon Briggs, and the agency, seeking damages for financial and personal harm.
A federal court initially refused to rule on the case, citing a lack of precedent in Wyoming law that established a “legal duty of law enforcement officers to conduct cases in a non-negligent manner.” This prompted the Wyoming Supreme Court to take up the issue, ultimately ruling in favor of the plaintiffs and affirming that police officers do, in fact, have a duty to conduct investigations with reasonable care.
The Supreme Court’s decision drew mixed reactions. Supporters argued that it upholds a fundamental principle of justice — that citizens should have the ability to hold government agents accountable for negligence, especially when that negligence causes significant harm.
Opponents, including some lawmakers and law enforcement officials, warned that the decision could have a “chilling effect” on policing. They argued that officers might hesitate to pursue cases or conduct investigations out of fear of being sued.
Two Supreme Court justices dissented, contending that the ruling would “impair vigorous prosecution” and expose officers to unnecessary litigation.
Several members of the Legislature’s Joint Judiciary Committee echoed these concerns. Committee co-chair Rep. Ember Oakley (R-Riverton), a county prosecutor, argued that Wyoming already has safeguards in place to hold officers accountable.
“To say that they are not held to a legal standard unless they can be sued for negligent investigation is not correct,” said Oakley, who voted in favor of the bill to roll back the court’s decision.
Rep. Art Washut (R-Casper), a retired police officer, also supported the bill, claiming it would prevent officers from being placed in a position where they owe a duty to “perpetrators of a crime.” However, critics noted that Palm-Egle was not a “perpetrator” of any crime. Rather, she was a victim of an overzealous investigation.
The ruling comes at a time when public scrutiny of law enforcement accountability is growing. While other states provide officers with qualified immunity — a doctrine that protects government officials from being sued for actions they take while performing their official duties — Wyoming’s Governmental Claims Act explicitly holds governmental entities “liable for damages resulting from tortious conduct of peace officers acting within the scope of their duties.”
Proponents of the Supreme Court’s decision argue that qualified immunity should not serve as a blanket protection for negligent behavior. Rep. Ken Chestek (D-Laramie), a retired law professor who opposed the bill, argued that police officers should still be able to assert qualified immunity in court, as long as they can demonstrate that they acted reasonably and in good faith.
“Under the court ruling, police officers can still offer a defense that protects them if they were acting reasonably and in good faith,” Chestek explained.
This nuanced view underscores the balance at play in the debate. Proponents of the court’s decision argue that officers can still defend themselves against lawsuits, but they should not be immune from lawsuits when clear negligence is proven.
The Wyoming Legislature’s Joint Judiciary Committee is made up of lawmakers with strong ties to law enforcement, including prosecutors and former police officers. Critics argue that this has skewed the debate in favor of rolling back the court’s decision.
The bill is expected to face resistance in the full Legislature, especially from lawmakers who align with the far-right Freedom Caucus, which emphasizes individual liberty and skepticism of government power. If those principles hold true, supporters argue, the Freedom Caucus should side with citizens’ rights to hold the government accountable for negligent investigations.
However, it remains unclear how the Freedom Caucus will approach the issue, as many of its members also support “law-and-order” policies that prioritize deference to police authority.
If the Legislature overturns the Wyoming Supreme Court’s decision, citizens would lose the ability to sue for damages caused by negligent police investigations. Critics warn that this would erode public trust in law enforcement and shield negligent officers from accountability.
The case of Debra Palm-Egle serves as a cautionary tale. Despite her innocence, she was subjected to invasive searches, forced to pay $54,000 in legal fees, and endured strict monitoring requirements that prevented her from traveling out of state. Her health suffered as a result, and she was denied access to prescribed medical marijuana to treat her multiple sclerosis.
Supporters of the court’s decision argue that, if not for the ability to sue for negligence, citizens like Palm-Egle would have no recourse to seek compensation for the harm caused to them.
