265966 WHI7E - CITV CLERK �r���
PINK - FINANCE GITY OF SAINT PALTL Council 19 -
CANARY - DEPARTMENT
BLUE - MAYOR File NO.
� �� , , o cil Resolution
Presented By �
Referred To Committee: Date
Out of Committee By Date
RESOLVED, that upon the execution of a Release of
All Claims in a form approved by the City Attorney, the
proper city offieers are authorized and directed to pay
out of the Tort Liability Fund 090?0-420-000, the sum of
Two Hundred Thirteen and 84/100 ($213.84) Dollars to
Kathleen Do�neier and C&C Ceramics, Inc. in full settlement
of their claim for damages arising out of the damaging -
of plate glass windaws at 962 Arcade Street on April 11,
1975 by a St. Paul Police Officer in the performance of
his duty.
COUIVCILMEN Requested by Department of:
Yeas Nays
�D[�$4
Pltxx�t Fiunt In Favor
� �
Rcedler A gai n s t BY
Sylvester
� ��
IMr V►Ce►�e�t Yedpsco � z,$ {g�J Form Approved by City Attorney
Adopted by L'ouncil: Date
Certified Passed by Council Secretary BY � � � ��
By
Approved b . Date s _ Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
By By
�S�+m SEP 13197
. . -. � f<i'.:•L..��e�.•`�vo'�9
C ITY OF SAi NT PAUL
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
August 14, 1975 PIERRE N. R�GNIER
TO: Members of the City Council
FROM: Daniel L. Ficker �.L��.
SUBJECT: Claim of C&C Ceramics, Inc. and
Kathleen Domeier
The above claim arose out of the arrest of two men
who cominitted the offense of aggravated rob'bery at
the Arcade Bar at 932 Arcade on April 11, 1975.
Three St. Paul police officers arrived outside the
bar while the men were still in the building. The
officers stationed themselves so as to block off
as effeetively as possible all avenues of escape.
Within moments„ the two men came out of the front door
which was being watched by Officer Huisenga. Officer
Huisenga leveled a shotgun at the men and ordered
them to halt. One man obeyed the command, but the
other man ran north along the east side of Arcade to
the rear of the building, and then east between the
cars in the parking lot behind the building. The
man then encountered Officer Bennett and reversed
his direction and ran back to Arcade and north along
the sidewalk on the east side of Arcade. During this
time Officer Huisenga was holding the other suspect
by the front door of the bar. He was unable to chase
the fleeing suspect and up to this point, he was unable
to fire at the fleeing suspect because of other people
in the area. As the fleeing suspect approached 954
Arcade, the area cleared of people so that Officer
Hu3�senga was able to fire one shot at the suspect with-
out endangering the lives of other people. The shot
apparently had the desired effect, because the fleeing
suspect ducked into the front door at 954 Arcade.
City Hall, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
612 298-5121
. . ����� �
Members of the City Council
Page Two
August 14, 1975
Officer Huisenga was then able to turn the suspect
he was holding over to Lieutenant Kaase who had just
arrived on the scene, and Huisenga went into 954
Arcade in pursuit of the fleeing suspect. Officer
Huf senga was able to apprehend the person s�1ho had
fled. This man was armed with a 38 caliber revolver.
Unfortunately, the pellets from the shotgun damaged
two plate glass windows on the south side of 962 Arcade,
which is� the subject of the elaim.
My investigation of the claim led me to two conclusions:
1) Officer Huisenga had a duty to arrest the fleeing
suspect who he had probable cause to believe had
committed a felony. 2) Officer 8uisenga acted reasonably
and lawfully and with due regard for the safety of
others in his attempt to stop the fleeing suspect by
use of the shotgun. It was thus my opinion that the
City of Saint Paul was immune from liability for the
damage done to the windows by reason of the provision�
of Minn. Stat. Section 466.03 subd. 5. That section
provides that a municipality is immune from liability
for "any claim based upon an act or omission of an officer
or employee, exercising due care, in the execution of
a valid or invalid statute, charter, ordinance, reso-
lution, or regulation" . The claim then was denied by
this office per my instructions.
It is my understanding that members of the council and
the Mayor believe that the claim should be paid. I
cannot disagree that the equities lie with the claimant,
and that a court of law or a jury may not agree with
my opinion regarding the degree of care exercised by
the officer. Accordingly, I am submitting for your
consideration a Re��olution authorizing payment of the
claim. Minn. Stat. Section 466.08 expressly gives the
. , , .
�����.R�
Members of the City Council
Page Three
August 14, 1975
governing body of a municipality the power to
compromise, adjust and settle any tort claim against
the municipality, and such expenditure of funds
in this instance would, in my opinion, be lawful.
Obviously, I believe the City has a good defense
against the claim and I am not recommending payment
of the claim. But, the decision whether or not
to accept my opinion is discretionary with the
Council, and I have 'been adjudged wrong before
by a jury of my peers.
DLF