Susan E. Ryan, as Administrator of the Estate of Brian McDonald, Plaintiff/appellee v. Mark Napier, Pima County…

Summary

The court held that an officer's intentional use of physical force cannot support a negligence claim because negligence and intent are mutually exclusive; the proper claim for the intentional dog release was battery. A plaintiff may pursue negligence only for conduct independent of the intentional force, and the officer bears the burden of proving statutory justification in a civil battery action. The court also held that experts may discuss relevant law-enforcement factors but may not suggest that the federal excessive-force factors establish the legal standard under the state justification statute.