Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 6-610 (2026)

Actions against law enforcement officers.

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IClegislature.idaho.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Actions against law enforcement officers.

(1) For purposes of this section, a "law enforcement officer" shall be defined as any court personnel, sheriff, constable, peace officer, state police officer, correctional, probation or parole official, prosecuting attorney, city attorney, attorney general, or their employees or agents, or any other person charged with the duty of enforcement of the criminal, traffic or penal laws of this state or any other law enforcement personnel or peace officer as defined in chapter 51, title 19, Idaho Code.

(2) Before any civil action may be filed against any law enforcement officer or service of civil process on any law enforcement officer, when such action arises out of, or in the course of the performance of his duty, or in any action upon the bond of any such law enforcement officer, the proposed plaintiff or petitioner, as a condition precedent thereto, shall prepare and file with, and at the time of filing the complaint or petition in any such action, a written undertaking with at least two (2) sufficient sureties in an amount to be fixed by the court. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure diligent prosecution of a civil action brought against a law enforcement officer, and in the event judgment is entered against the plaintiff or petitioner, for the payment to the defendant or respondent of all costs and expenses that may be awarded against the plaintiff or petitioner, including an award of reasonable attorney’s fees as determined by the court.

(3) In any such civil action the prevailing party shall be entitled to an award of costs as otherwise provided by law. The official bond of any law enforcement officer under this section shall be liable for any such costs.

(4) At any time during the course of a civil action against a law enforcement officer, the defendant or respondent may except to either the plaintiff’s or petitioner’s failure to file a bond or to the sufficiency of the sureties or to the amount of the bond.

(5) When the defendant or respondent excepts to the plaintiff’s or petitioner’s failure to post a bond under this section, the judge shall dismiss the case.

(6) When the defendant or respondent excepts to the sufficiency of the sureties the sureties must be justified by the plaintiff or petitioner. Upon failure to justify the judge must dismiss the case.

(7) When the amount of the bond is excepted to, a hearing may be held upon notice to the plaintiff or petitioner by the defendant or respondent of not less than two (2) nor more than ten (10) working days after the date the exception is filed, before the judge of the court in which the action is brought. If it appears that the bond is insufficient in amount, the judge shall order a new bond sufficient in amount to be filed within five (5) days of the date such order is received by the plaintiff or petitioner. If no such bond is filed as required by the order of the court, the judge shall dismiss the action.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 53 cases (29 in the last 5 years), 1957–2026 · leading case: Beehler v. Fremont Cnty., 182 P.3d 713 (Idaho Ct. App. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Beehler v. Fremont Cnty., 182 P.3d 713 (Idaho Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 80× “Beehler (the Beehlers) appeal from the dismissal of their complaint for failure to file a written undertaking pursuant to Idaho Code § 6-610 . We affirm. *658 I. BACKGROUND On February 14, 2004, Susan was arrested for driving under the influence near Island Park, Idaho.”

Athay v. Stacey, 196 P.3d 325 (Idaho 2008). · cites it 40× “The district court held that the complaint must be dismissed as to all defendants for various reasons including that the plaintiff failed to comply with the notice of tort claim requirements of the Idaho Tort Claims Act, the plaintiff failed to post a bond as required by Idaho…”

Allied Bail Bonds, Inc. v. Cnty. of Kootenai, 258 P.3d 340 (Idaho 2011). · cites it 22× “As an affirmative defense, the Sheriff asserted that Allied had “failed to comply with the bond requirement set forth in Idaho Code § 6-610 .” The district court heard argument on the bond issue and ordered Allied to file a $25,000 bond with two sureties.”

Hyde v. Fisher, 152 P.3d 653 (Idaho Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 32× “The state argued that Hyde had not stated a claim upon which relief could be granted, that he had not satisfied the security bond requirement of I.C. § 6-610, that habeas corpus is not a vehicle for enforcement of the FERPA and the RLUIPA, and that the Establishment clauses of…”

Hill-Vu Mobile Home Park v. City of Pocatello, 402 P.3d 1041 (Idaho 2017). · cites it 6× “§ 6-918A to terminate the applicability of I.C. § 6-610 in tort claims.” Id. With respect to the respondents’ request for an award of attorney fees on appeal in Beehler , the Court of Appeals held that they had not shown by clear and convincing evidence that the appellants had…”

Blackhawk v. City of Chubbuck, 488 F. Supp. 2d 1097 (D. Idaho 2006). · cites it 16× “State Law Claims Defendants assert that they are immune from Plaintiffs’ state law claims based on Idaho Code §§ 6-610 , 6-904A, and 6-904(3).”

Ralphs v. City of Spirit Lake, 560 P.2d 1315 (Idaho 1977). · cites it 4× “NOTES [1] He dismissed the action against the police officer for failure to file a bond as required by I.C. § 6-610, and as the majority correctly points out that issue is not before us on this appeal.”

Garren v. Butigan, 509 P.2d 340 (Idaho 1973). · cites it 16× “In his answer dated September 8, 1965, the defendant generally denied all the allegations of the complaint.”

Pauls v. Green, 816 F. Supp. 2d 961 (D. Idaho 2011). · cites it 6× “Individual defendants Gibson and Sheriff Green argue that Pauls cannot pursue these claims because she failed to post the bond required by Idaho Code § 6-610 . Idaho Code § 6-610 applies to actions arising out of a law enforcement officers’ official duties and requires a…”

Monson v. Boyd, 348 P.2d 93 (Idaho 1959). · cites it 10× “” On defendants’ motion the action was dismissed for failure of the plaintiff to file the undertaking required by I.C. § 6-610. That section in pertinent part provides : “Before any action may be filed against any sheriff, constable, peace officer, state police officer, or any…”

Pigg v. Brockman, 314 P.2d 609 (Idaho 1957). · cites it 4× “Upon motion of defendant Hagler, a judgment dismissing the action as to him was entered upon the ground that plaintiff had failed and refused to give the written undertaking required by § 6-610, I.'C., which provides as follows: “Before any action may be filed against any…”

Kyle Athay v. Rich Cnty., Utah, 291 P.3d 1014 (Idaho 2012). · cites it 2× “The district court held that the complaint must be dismissed as to all defendants for various reasons including that the plaintiff failed to comply with the notice of tort claim requirements of the Idaho Tort Claims Act, the plaintiff failed to post a bond as required by Idaho…”

Show all 53 citing cases →

— Idaho Code § 6-610(1) — 3 cases

Beehler v. Fremont Cnty., 182 P.3d 713 (Idaho Ct. App. 2008). “Beehler (the Beehlers) appeal from the dismissal of their complaint for failure to file a written undertaking pursuant to Idaho Code § 6-610 . We affirm. *658 I. BACKGROUND On February 14, 2004, Susan was arrested for driving under the influence near Island Park, Idaho.”

Lietz v. Drug Enf't Admin. (D. Idaho 2022).

Stacey v. Cnty. of Madison (D. Idaho 2024).

— Idaho Code § 6-610(2) — 13 cases

Allied Bail Bonds, Inc. v. Cnty. of Kootenai, 258 P.3d 340 (Idaho 2011). “As an affirmative defense, the Sheriff asserted that Allied had “failed to comply with the bond requirement set forth in Idaho Code § 6-610 .” The district court heard argument on the bond issue and ordered Allied to file a $25,000 bond with two sureties.”

Hyde v. Fisher, 152 P.3d 653 (Idaho Ct. App. 2007). “The state argued that Hyde had not stated a claim upon which relief could be granted, that he had not satisfied the security bond requirement of I.C. § 6-610, that habeas corpus is not a vehicle for enforcement of the FERPA and the RLUIPA, and that the Establishment clauses of…”

Johnson v. Boundary Sch. Dist. No. 101, 63 P.3d 457 (Idaho 2003).

St. John v. Kootenai Cnty. (D. Idaho 2021).

— Idaho Code § 6-610(3) — 3 cases

Polatis v. Katseanes (D. Idaho 2021).

Weldon v. Francis (D. Idaho 2022).

Hall v. Gooding Cnty. Sheriff Dep't (D. Idaho 2022).

— Idaho Code § 6-610(4) — 6 cases

Polatis v. Katseanes (D. Idaho 2021).

Weldon v. Francis (D. Idaho 2022).

Hall v. Gooding Cnty. Sheriff Dep't (D. Idaho 2022).

— Idaho Code § 6-610(5) — 5 cases

St. John v. Kootenai Cnty. (D. Idaho 2021).

Rush v. Wienstein (D. Idaho 2021).

Lietz v. Drug Enf't Admin. (D. Idaho 2022).

Stacey v. Cnty. of Madison (D. Idaho 2024).

— Idaho Code § 6-610(7) — 8 cases

Polatis v. Katseanes (D. Idaho 2021).

Weldon v. Francis (D. Idaho 2022).

Hall v. Gooding Cnty. Sheriff Dep't (D. Idaho 2022).

Johnson v. City of Idaho Falls, Idaho (D. Idaho 2021).

Ludwig v. City of Pinehurst (D. Idaho 2022).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.