Which of the following is NOT an exception that invalidates indemnification?

The option cited as the correct answer focuses on a crucial aspect of indemnification, specifically the requirement that the officer's actions must not be characterized by bad intent or recklessness. When an officer acts in good faith and within the scope of their duties, it is less likely that indemnification would be invalidated.

Indemnification generally protects officers from personal liability when they are performing their official duties, provided those actions are conducted in good faith and are reasonable under the circumstances. This principle ensures that officers are not financially burdened by their decisions made while serving the community, as long as those decisions do not involve malfeasance or egregious conduct.

In contrast, actions that are characterized as wanton or malicious typically undermine the basis for indemnification, as they indicate a deliberate disregard for the law or public safety. Additionally, if an officer requests defense too late, it can be interpreted as a failure to adhere to procedural requirements, which compromises their position for indemnification. Lastly, while acting within the scope of duty is a foundational element for indemnification, any deviation into misconduct removes that immunity.

This choice illustrates the importance of maintaining good faith in duties performed, aligning with the broader legal principles governing indemnification for peace officers.