## Facts

- Stephen Zerbe was cited for driving an overweight truck.
- The district attorney dismissed the criminal complaint after being shown the street was not public.
- The dismissal was not communicated to the acting district judge.
- Zerbe did not appear for arraignment, relying on the dismissal.
- The acting district judge, unaware of the dismissal, issued a bench warrant.
- About five months later, Zerbe went to a police department to apply for a chauffeur’s license; the warrant was served and he was jailed.
- Jail personnel allegedly did not allow Zerbe to make phone calls, and he remained in custody about nine hours before posting bail.
- After Zerbe retained counsel, the bench warrant was quashed based on the earlier dismissal.
- Zerbe sued the State for damages, alleging negligent failure to communicate the dismissal and negligent denial of a phone call, which prolonged his detention.
- The superior court dismissed the action as barred by AS 09.50.250(3), concluding the claim “arose out of” false arrest or false imprisonment.

## Issues

1. Whether AS 09.50.250(3)’s exception for claims “arising out of” false arrest or false imprisonment bars a suit framed as negligence when the alleged wrongdoing is negligent recordkeeping and related custodial negligence that results in detention.
2. Whether the proper characterization of Zerbe’s complaint is an excluded intentional-tort claim or an independent negligence claim permitted under the government claims statute.

## Decision

- The Alaska Supreme Court reversed the dismissal and remanded.
- The court held Zerbe’s action was not barred by AS 09.50.250(3).
- The court characterized the alleged wrongdoing as negligence (including negligent recordkeeping and custodial negligence), not an intentional tort claim for false arrest or false imprisonment.
- Because the case was resolved on statutory grounds, the court did not reach Zerbe’s constitutional challenge to the statute.

## Legal Principles

- In applying AS 09.50.250(3), courts must focus on the nature of the alleged governmental wrongdoing, not solely on the form of the injury (e.g., detention).
- The false arrest/false imprisonment exception targets claims grounded in excluded intentional torts; a negligence claim is not barred merely because it culminates in confinement.
- Negligent failure to maintain or communicate accurate governmental records (including information leading to issuance or persistence of a warrant) can state an actionable negligence claim independent of false imprisonment.
- A complaint labeled “negligence” may still be barred if, in substance, it rests on conduct constituting an excluded intentional tort; characterization turns on the gravamen of the alleged acts.

## Conclusion

The court held that Alaska’s sovereign-immunity exception for claims “arising out of” false arrest or false imprisonment does not automatically preclude a negligence action when the alleged misconduct is negligent recordkeeping and related custodial failures that lead to wrongful detention, and it remanded for further proceedings.


Zerbe v. State, 578 P.2d 597 (Alaska 1978)