Davis has not alleged false arrest or false imprisonment. Moreover, Davis does not contend that officer Stoops was acting outside the seope of his employment when he deployed Chester We must therefore determine whether officer Stoops was engaged in the "enforcement of a law" at the time of Chester's attack. [6] As noted above, the supreme court in Mullin explained that "the scope of the term 'enforcement' is limited to those activities in which a government entity or its employees compel or attempt to compel the obedience of another to laws, rules or regulations, or sanction or attempt to sancetion a violation thereof." 639 N.E.2d at 283. Davis contends that the City's use of Chester did not constitute law enforcement because the City used contrary to law. Minks, 709 N.E.2d at 382-383 (<HOLDING>). Here, the City deployed Chester to assist in
holding that indianas operating while intoxicated statute which states that a person who operates a vehicle while intoxicated commits a class a misdemeanor is not limited to operation of motor vehicles on public highways holding that police officers who instructed an intoxicated and unlicensed teenager who was a passenger in a vehicle operated by his intoxicated relative to drive the vehicle home rather than go through the effort of preparing arrest paperwork for the two intoxicated subjects were immune from liability for damages resulting from deaths of two innocent motorists and injuries to another cause by the drunk driving relative holding that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the defendants conviction for operating a vehicle while intoxicated causing death as a class c felony holding a felony conviction for driving while intoxicated dwi may be a crime of violence holding police officers were entitled to immunity where the officers decided not to arrest an intoxicated driver who subsequently died of hypothermia in his vehicle