David L. Wolfskill – Crook County Sheriff’s Office

In 1994, Deputy Sheriff David L. Wolfskill conducted a traffic stop on Joseph Arlint, who was operating a motorbike while intoxicated. Despite Arlint’s evident intoxication and a history of DUI arrests, Wolfskill issued citations for speeding, no driver’s license, no registration, and no insurance, but did not arrest him or impound the vehicle. Shortly after being released, Arlint was involved in a fatal accident. The Wyoming Supreme Court case McCoy v. Crook County Sheriff’s Department (1999) addressed whether Wolfskill had a duty to arrest Arlint under these circumstances. The court concluded that the decision to arrest was discretionary and not mandated by Wyoming statutes, affirming the district court’s dismissal of the negligence claim against Wolfskill. ([law.justia.com](https://law.justia.com/cases/wyoming/supreme-court/1999/124241.html?utm_source=openai))

## Officer Forum Links:
– [David L. Wolfskill](https://watchaudits.com/forums/topic/david-l-wolfskill/)

Forum Links

Posted in Audits Law Enforcement Agencies: Officer Names: States:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Welcome to Police Accountability Database

Our Mission

We're building a comprehensive database of police interactions to promote accountability and transparency in law enforcement.

How You Can Participate

  • View the Blog: Read about documented police interactions
  • Share Your Experience: Submit your own police interaction story
  • Browse the Forums: Check if your local law enforcement has been documented

Important Community Guidelines

It is strictly against our rules to:

  • Make threats of any kind
  • Share private information such as personal emails, home addresses, or phone numbers

Violation of these rules will result in immediate content removal and possible account suspension.

Why This Matters

By organizing this data, we can potentially demonstrate when officers were previously aware of laws they later claim ignorance of, challenging qualified immunity defenses and promoting accountability.