## Facts

- During the Veiled Prophet Fair at the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial in St. Louis, National Park Service rangers provided law-enforcement services.
- Rangers observed Larry Deuser engaging in disorderly conduct, including grabbing women and later urinating in public.
- Rangers arrested Deuser and transported him to the St. Louis Police Department, but local police could not or would not process him due to heavy holiday demands.
- The rangers terminated the arrest and released Deuser about a mile from the fairgrounds in a parking lot; he was highly intoxicated and lacked money or transportation.
- Deuser later wandered onto an interstate highway and was struck and killed; his blood-alcohol concentration was 0.214.
- Deuser’s survivors sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), alleging negligent handling and release.
- The district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), holding the discretionary function exception applied.

## Issues

1. Whether the rangers’ decisions to terminate the arrest and release Deuser involved judgment or choice rather than being controlled by a mandatory directive.
2. Whether those decisions were grounded in policy considerations such that the FTCA discretionary function exception bars the wrongful-death claim.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The court held that the release decision involved judgment or choice because no mandatory rule dictated how the rangers had to proceed once local police could not process the arrest.
- The court held the decision was the type protected by the discretionary function exception because it was tied to fair-operations policies addressing crowd control and limited law-enforcement and detention resources.
- Because the discretionary function exception applied, sovereign immunity was not waived and the FTCA claim could not proceed.

## Legal Principles

- Under the Berkovitz test, the discretionary function exception applies when (1) the challenged conduct involves judgment or choice and (2) the judgment is the kind the exception protects, meaning it is susceptible to social, economic, or political policy considerations.
- Broad enforcement guidance that instructs officers to use “best judgment” and treats arrests as a last resort can confer discretion even where other procedures specify mandatory mechanics for processing arrests.
- Law-enforcement decisions about whether to arrest, continue custody, or release a detainee in a resource-constrained event setting can fall within the discretionary function exception when linked to operational policies on staffing, detention capacity, and public-order management.
- The exception applies “whether or not the discretion involved be abused”; alleged negligence does not create FTCA jurisdiction if the conduct is within protected discretion.
- Plaintiffs must identify a specific mandatory directive that removes discretion to avoid dismissal on discretionary function grounds.

## Conclusion

The court held that the rangers’ decision to end the arrest and release an intoxicated detainee away from a crowded fair was a discretionary, policy-linked law-enforcement judgment covered by the FTCA discretionary function exception, requiring dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.


Deuser v. Vecera, 139 F.3d 1190 (8th Cir. 1998)