Case Law & Resources: Alaska
Citation
Maness v. Daily, 307 P.3d 894 (Alaska 2013)
Issue Presented & Facts
Relatively recent case in Alaska about whether force constituted excessive force and whether officers were entitled to qualified immunity. Also discusses whether the officers provoked the defendant and created a situation in which the use of deadly force was authorized.
​
Officers were serving a warrant to arrest defendant on the basis that there was probable cause that he would present a likelihood of causing serious harm to himself or others. Defendant eventually fled in his RV and subsequently fled from his RV into the woods. After a 6 hour pursuit, Defendant was shot in the hand (he was holding a rifle).
Holding
Alaska has not accepted a "provocation-of-violence" theory, even though the Ninth Circuit has, and thus the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because there was no violation of the defendant's "clearly established rights."
Additionally, the officer's use of force was justifiable since there was probably cause to believe that the defendant presented a likelihood of causing serious harm to himself or others.
​
Although no Alaska cases create a duty to warn or duty to de-escalate, this case's holding addressed the related point that the provocation-of-violence theory would not undermine an officer's justification for using force.
Reference to Alaska Stat. § 47.30.815(b) regarding qualified immunity.
Case Law
Bifelt v. Alaska, No. 4:18-CV-00017 JWS, 2020 WL 1045816 (D. Alaska March 3, 2020)
Whether the officers employed excessive force under state law when the defendant was shot and killed during a confrontation with police, and whether the State of Alaska was liable for failing to properly and adequately train the officers.
​
Defendant was apprehended in a vehicle he had stolen. During the stop, defendant indicated he had two firearms in the vehicle, one of which was tossed nearby on the ground, and another within the vehicle.
Despite multiple warnings, defendant would not comply and refused arrest. Eventually (and after multiple threats to police) defendant walked toward the gun and picked it up, at which point the office shot him and he died.
Since the use of deadly force was reasonable and the officer believed the use of deadly force was lawful, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity against the state law excessive force claim. Additionally, the State of Alaska was entitled to sovereign immunity since claims asserting breaches of the State's duty to exercise due care in training officers are entitled to sovereign immunity and no other independent duty was alleged.
​
Although not required/dispositive, the fact that officers had called in a negotiator and internally discussed/considered non-lethal uses of force and also made multiple verbal warnings weighed into the court's finding.
Reference to Alaska Stat. § 09.50.250(3).
Resources
Citation
Summary and Notes
Discusses use of force policies/training specifically with respect to the Anchorage Police Department.
Relevant Excerpt
Although the Anchorage Police Department says it requires training for de-escalation techniques, this is not elaborated upon in its public documents, including its recent "response to resistance" policy.