Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for FreeJ. Rush finds that the trial court properly held that a conservation officer with the department of natural resources had not acted criminally by charging a driver for hitting and killing the officer's family dog with her car, and thus that the state was properly required to indemnify the officer for acting in the course of his employment. The driver initially stopped after hitting the officer's dog but subsequently drove the last mile to her boyfriend's house so he could accompany her to the scene of the accident. The state contends the officer lied to law enforcement by contending the driver had not returned until the next day, but "the complaint was admitted for a limited purpose," which prevented the court from considering allegations in the complaint as proof that the officer lied. Affirmed.