Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Appeals court denies challenge to rogue cop’s hiring (UPDATE)

By: Associated Press//October 18, 2011//

Appeals court denies challenge to rogue cop’s hiring (UPDATE)

By: Associated Press//October 18, 2011//

Listen to this article

By TODD RICHMOND
Associated Press

MADISON, Wis. (AP) – The families of six young people gunned down by a rogue sheriff’s deputy in one of the most horrific mass shootings in Wisconsin history can’t challenge the county’s decision to hire him, a state appeals court ruled Tuesday.

Forest County Sheriff’s Deputy Tyler Peterson showed up at a party at his ex-girlfriend’s apartment in Crandon in October 2007. He got into an argument with her, left the apartment and returned with his county-issued assault rifle.

He opened fire and killed six people in less than a minute. Peterson shot Charles Nietzel three times but Nietzel survived by playing dead. Peterson, who was 20 at the time, later killed himself.

Nietzel and the families of four of the other victims filed a multi-million dollar wrongful death lawsuit in 2008 against the county and the city of Crandon, which employed Peterson as a part-time police officer.

They claimed law enforcement officials knew Peterson had mental problems and a history of violence and wrongly gave him access to weapons.

Forest County Circuit Judge Mark Mangerson dismissed their claims last year, ruling the county and city were immune from such a lawsuit. He ruled that Wisconsin law protects government subdivisions from liability when they make discretionary decisions, including the hiring of employees.

The families dismissed the city from their appeal but continued to pursue the case against the county, making a broad argument that government immunity should be limited.

The 3rd District Court of Appeals disagreed, noting in a concise three-page decision that the state Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that government bodies are immune from lawsuits when they make discretionary decisions.

The families’ attorney, James A. Olson, told The Associated Press in an email that he expected the appeals court to uphold the dismissal because only the state Supreme Court can change the immunity doctrine. He said he anticipates the families will ask the high court to take the case.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests