Adams v. Carlisle
| Decision Date | 30 March 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. A05A1836.,No. A05A1837.,No. A05A1838.,A05A1836.,A05A1837.,A05A1838. |
| Citation | 630 S.E.2d 529 |
| Parties | ADAMS et al. v. CARLISLE et al. Adams et al. v. Evans et al. Adams et al. v. Wallace et al. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Larry Wolfe, Mark Yurachek, L. David Wolfe, P.C., Atlanta, for Brenda Adams.
Jason Waymire, Lawrenceville, Terry Williams, Terry E. Williams, & Associates, P.C., Lawrenceville, for Billy Carlisle.
James Finley, Karen Focia, Finley & Buckley, P.C., Atlanta, for Glenda Evans.
Michael Rust, Matthew Hilt, Gray, Rust, St. Amand, Moffett & Brieske, LLP, N.E. Atlanta, for Jerry Wallace.
These appeals arise out of the trial court's grant of summary judgment to numerous defendants, all of whom were sued in connection with the false arrests of Brenda Adams and Sharon Elliott ("appellants") at the North Georgia Premium Outlet Mall (the "Mall") in Dawson County. In their complaint, Adams and Elliott alleged several causes of action, including, but not limited to false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, slander, and tortious misconduct, and they sought punitive damages in connection therewith. In Case No. A05A1836, the appellees are Corporal P. Chase Johns, individually and in his official capacity, Investigator William Miller, individually and in his official capacity, and Billy Carlisle, in his official capacity as Dawson County Sheriff. In Case No. A05A1837, Le Gourmet Chef ("LGC") and its employees, Glenda K. Evans and Gabriel Blackburn, are the named appellees. Finally, in Case No. A05A1838, the appellees are CPG Partners, L.P., d/b/a North Georgia Premium Outlet Mall ("CPG") and its security guards, Jerry M. ("Bobby") Wallace and Michael D. Grayson. We affirm the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Johns, Miller, and Carlisle in Case No. A05A1836. In Case No. A05A1837, we affirm the grant of summary judgment to Blackburn as to all of appellants' claims and to LGC and Evans on appellants' claims of negligence, slander, tortious misconduct, and punitive damages but reverse as to appellants' claims for false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution as to LGC and Evans. Finally, in Case No. A05A1838, we affirm the grant of summary judgment to Wallace as to all of appellants' claims and to CPG and Grayson on appellants' claims of negligence but reverse on appellants' false imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and punitive damages claims as to CPG and Grayson.
To prevail at summary judgment under OCGA § 9-11-56, the moving party must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the undisputed facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, warrant judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56(c). A defendant may do this by showing the court that the documents, affidavits, depositions and other evidence in the record reveal that there is no evidence sufficient to create a jury issue on at least one essential element of the plaintiff's case. . . . Our review of an appeal from summary judgment is de novo.1
Viewed most favorably to Adams and Elliott, the record shows that appellants were shopping at LGC (appellee in Case No. A05A1837) at the Mall on March 3, 2002, when Elliott used a $20 bill to pay for some items. Evans (also an appellee in Case No. A05A1837), who was a cashier at LGC on the day in question, deposed that she was required to mark all $20, $50, and $100 bills with a counterfeit detection pen; that Elliott's $20 bill looked suspicious; that she marked the bill with the pen and based upon the color of the mark on the bill, which was either black or dark brown, she concluded that it was counterfeit; and that she told Elliott that she could not accept the bill because it was counterfeit. Elliott then gave her another bill, which Evans also marked and determined was counterfeit. Elliott then summoned the store manager, Blackburn (also an appellee in Case No. A05A1837).
Blackburn deposed that he was not sure that the money was counterfeit so he asked Elliott for her name and address and informed her that he would keep the merchandise and the money and would mail the items to her if the bank verified that the bills were authentic. In his statement to police, however, Blackburn stated that he told Elliott that the bill appeared to be counterfeit and that the store could not accept it; that his suspicions were based upon the fact that the pen's mark on the bill turned brown; and that Elliott insisted that the bills were authentic.
Elliott deposed that Blackburn informed her that he would have to take the money to the bank to verify its authenticity; that she told him that the money was not counterfeit but gave him her name and phone number to contact her after going to the bank so that she could return to pick up her money; and that she and Adams left the store without objection from Blackburn or Evans. Elliott further deposed that she and Adams continued to shop until they noticed security guards following them. Once Adams and Elliott reached their car, the security guards and the police approached them.
Evans testified that after the appellants left the store, she called the Mall's security personnel, pursuant to Blackburn's instructions, and advised them that the women were passing counterfeit bills. Security guards Grayson and Wallace (appellees in Case No. A05A1838) responded to the call, and Evans pointed out the two women to them. Grayson told Evans to call the police, followed the women, and told Wallace to go to the food court to wait on the police. When the sheriff's deputy arrived, Grayson pointed to the car that Adams and Elliott were entering, and Deputy Chase Johns (appellee in Case No. A05A1836) pulled up behind the car. A video camera in Deputy Johns's car recorded the entire incident.
The transcript of the ensuing conversation shows that after Deputy Johns asked Adams and Elliott for their identification, he asked who had the money, and Elliott replied that she did. Elliott explained that the bills were old and had belonged to her 86-year-old father-in-law; and she gave the officer her remaining $20 bills. Grayson then interjects: 2 Deputy Johns responds, "Man, I hate this because I'm not an expert at this" then explains to Adams and Elliott that he has to investigate the matter. Deputy Johns radios the investigator on call, Miller (also an appellee in Case No. A05A1836), reports to him that there are "different sizes between the ink line and the edge of the paper," repeats that he is not an expert on counterfeit bills, then reiterates that his only concern is that the bill is offset. Miller advises Johns to arrest Elliott. By this time, Evans is at the scene.
Johns states to Miller: Johns then inquires as to whether anyone present has a $20 bill, and Grayson replies that he does. Miller instructs Johns to gather all of the bills, then Johns asks Miller if he can use one of the markers to check the bills. At that point, Evans interjects to instruct Johns on how the pen works. Grayson suggests that Johns use the pen on one of Grayson's bills and then asks Johns if he sees the difference. Investigator Miller asks who kept the marker. Johns then tells him that Evans is with them outside and that she wrote on the security guard's bills and the mark was yellow, and then on Elliott's bills, and the mark was brown. Miller then says, "What does that mean, the brown is counterfeit?" and then tells Johns that he has probable cause to arrest Elliott for forgery. Miller also advises Johns to ask Adams to consent to a search of her purse.
Before Johns arrests Elliott, however, Evans continues to talk to Johns, telling him that the colors on the bills appear funny. Evans then calls Grayson over to where she is talking to Johns and the following conversation ensues:
Johns asks Evans and Blackburn to give him written statements about the incident and then places Elliott under arrest.
Deputy Johns asks Adams to look at the bills in her wallet, and she consents.
Johns then sends Wallace, the other security guard, into the store to get a detection pen from Evans, who had left the scene by that time. Johns reports to an unidentified officer that Adams's money also appears to be counterfeit based on the color of ink from the pen and that it does not feel right, is not square, and has a strange watermark. He then radios Miller and asks him to come to the scene.
When Miller arrives, he looks at the bills and says "they're bogus as hell." Miller also searches Adams's purse and finds prescription medications that were not contained in their original containers. Adams and Elliott were charged with forgery, and Adams was also charged with violating OCGA § 16-13-75, which requires that prescription drugs be kept in their original containers.
On April 24, 2002, Captain Steven Hawk, the evidence custodian and expert on counterfeit bills...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Keele v. Glynn Cnty.
...Sheriff Bennett in his official capacity does not fall within the bond's coverage. See Adams v. Carlisle, 278 Ga.App. 777, 630 S.E.2d 529, 549 (2006) (Phipps, J., concurring in the judgment). Specifically, Plaintiff's claims concern Thompson's care while in GCDC custody. However, the sherif......
-
Brown v. Camden County, Ga., Civil Action No. CV207-69.
...in the mind of defendants a reasonable belief that there was probable cause for the arrest and prosecution." Adams v. Carlisle, 278 Ga.App. 777, 782, 630 S.E.2d 529 (2006). And even if a defendant has probable cause to initiate a criminal proceeding, if afterward, the defendant "acquired kn......
-
Ferrell v. Mikula
...Law of Torts, p. 633, n. 7.1 Further, some cases do not distinguish among the three causes of action, e.g., Adams v. Carlisle, 278 Ga.App. 777, 784(3)(a), 630 S.E.2d 529 (2006) (physical precedent only); Jacobs v. Shaw, 219 Ga. App. 425, 426(1), 465 S.E.2d 460 (1995). Other cases state inco......
-
Lagroon v. Lawson
...51–7–43. A judge, however, “may determine the issue when the material facts are undisputed.” Adams v. Carlisle, 278 Ga.App. 777, 782(1), 630 S.E.2d 529 (2006) (citations omitted). And while a grand jury's return of charges is prima facie evidence of probable cause, it is not conclusive and ......