The law sets up a two-step process. First, a common pleas court must rule that a person was wrongfully imprisoned and entitled to compensation. Then the person can file a lawsuit against the state in the Ohio Court of Claims to recover a sum of money. The parties and trial court agreed the case would proceed in two phases.
If not, the court would proceed to consider the second argument that he did not commit the crimes. The prosecutor appealed the decision to the Eighth District Court of Appeals. Based on a similar case dealing with another claim for wrongful imprisonment State v. The prosecutor appealed the decision to the Ohio Supreme Court. Based on the language of R. He asked the case to be remanded to Judge Russo to decide if the Mansaray decision applied. The Supreme Court denied the request.
After the reconsideration denial, Judge Russo resumed the case and scheduled a trial. In March , he filed a new complaint making the same two arguments. Because the case no longer was pending in his court, the judge had no authority to proceed after the Supreme Court reversed his decision.
State ex rel. Russo , Slip Opinion No.
'Humiliated': Ohio police officer assaulted woman, refused to let her put on clothes, lawsuit says
The officers apologized. Eventually a representative of the motel apologized. Apparently about that evening the motel had in fact been robbed. After the robbery the regular desk clerks had been replaced on duty by the desk clerk manager, Gladys Louise "Lou" Horn, until the night auditor could take over and the situation could return to normal. Horn had not been present when the robbery occurred, but was summoned from home. After Horn had been on duty for a brief period of time, she noticed the activity of Harvey as he waited in the lobby.
Construing the evidence most favorably to plaintiff-appellant, she should have recognized Harvey. No evidence indicated that she did recognize him. Horn, after observing Harvey's activities for a while, felt that his activities were suspicious and called police. The precise words she said to the police radio-room person who took the report were preserved on tape.
They start:. She then repeated the address and that the person was in the lobby. As a result of this report, the police dispatcher put out a call, which is a call indicating that a robbery has already occurred. A call is the exact call for a robbery in progress, but according to police testimony the two calls are used somewhat interchangeably. Sergeant Freddie Robinson and some of his precinct officers, upon hearing the dispatch, responded to the Royal Motor Inn. Sergeant Robinson was apparently the "big cop" with the shotgun who restrained Harvey as he was leaving the motel and caused Harvey to be detained while he was searched for weapons.
Upon an officer's obtaining Harvey's wallet and Harvey's status as a registered motel guest being verified, Harvey was released. Harvey soon contacted counsel to start the process of filing a lawsuit against the Royal Motor Inn and persons affiliated, but not against any of the police personnel. With this factual background, the applicable tort law must be analyzed. The essence of the tort of false arrest is the depriving of a person of his or her liberty without lawful justification.
Specifically, a plaintiff must show only that he or she was detained and that the detention was unlawful. The tort does not require proof of malice, motive or lack of probable cause. False arrest developed as a tort akin to trespass and criminal conversation, requiring no evil intent but merely an intrusion into a protected right. Since the tort was originally formulated, however, the rights of law enforcement personnel to detain a private citizen have changed significantly.
Thus, in Terry v. Ohio , U. This "stop and frisk" exception was expanded by the United States Supreme Court to allow limited detention where police suspected that a person was committing a crime at the moment of the stop. Adams v. Williams , U. The right to detain without probable cause was extended further still in United States v.
Hensley , U. Justice Brennan, long the liberal and freedom-of-the-individual advocate of that court, wrote in concurrence in Hensley, at For circumstances like these, Terry v. Ohio, U.
Talk to a Defense attorney
New York, U. Such arrests are governed by the probable-cause standard provided by the test of the Fourth Amendment itself. The Supreme Court of Ohio has not indicated a willingness or inclination to interpret police powers more narrowly than the standards mandated by the Constitution of the United States. Further, the Ohio Legislature has enacted an entire chapter of the Ohio Revised Code on the subject of arrest and detention R. Chapter , but has not set forth specific guidelines for unlawful detention which are less intrusive than full-scale arrests in places other than mercantile establishments, libraries, museums and other archival institutions.
Thus, apparently the guidelines for determining lawful and unlawful detentions come from the federal constitutional law set forth above. Applying Fourth Amendment standards to Harvey's case, no unlawful detention occurred. The police communications division received a report which linked a recent robbery with a suspicious person at the Royal Motor Inn. The police dispatcher then aired a report indicating a completed robbery and a suspicious person at the inn.
In response, several cruisers went to the Royal Motor Inn and the supervising sergeant, along with some of his officers, detained a man seen leaving the lobby. The man — Keith Harvey — was detained at gunpoint for two to three minutes while police investigated the situation.
- Nashville Civil Rights Lawyers;
- Fulson v. City of Columbus, F. Supp. 1 (S.D. Ohio ) :: Justia;
- BEN FRY v. OFFICER RON ROBINSON | FindLaw;
- Additional topics.
- how to check vin for free.
Harvey was then released without being arrested and he received an apology. Given the limited duration of the encounter, no matter how terrifying, and the information communicated to the street officer, the detention was not unlawful. From a social policy point of view, having a unified standard for evaluating police conduct on the street makes good sense. Telling a police officer that he or she can detain a person lawfully for Fourth Amendment purposes and still be liable in a suit for false arrest would be to convey conflicting messages which can only make the difficult job of a police officer more difficult and confusing.
The fact that the detention here was lawful serves to protect the Royal Motor Inn and its employees from liability for false arrest. The suit does not present a negligence theory, a theory of malicious prosecution, or any other theories of liability. Therefore, once the determination has been made that no unlawful restraint occurred, a directed verdict was appropriate.
The trial court did not err in granting the motion.
Stay Informed
The assignment of error is overruled and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Back to Results. Download Print Get alerts. Harvey v. Horn 33 Ohio App.
Capcha | CaseMine
Browse cases. Cases citing this document How cited Treinen v. Village of Greenhills The essence of the tort of false arrest is the depriving of a person of his or her liberty without lawful… Huff v. Ohio Dept.