Broughton v. State

Decision Date10 July 1975
Docket NumberNo. 50612,50612
Citation37 N.Y.2d 451,335 N.E.2d 310,373 N.Y.S.2d 87
Parties, 335 N.E.2d 310 Kenneth G. BROUGHTON, as father and natural guardian of Susan M. Broughton, an infant, Respondent, v. STATE of New York, Appellant. Donald SCHANBARGER, Appellant-Respondent, v. Robert KELLOGG, Respondent-Appellant, and Peter Cooper, Respondent. Claim
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. (Jeremiah Jochnowitz and Ruth Kessler Toch, Albany, of counsel), for appellant in the first above-entitled action.

Donald Tirschwell, New City, for respondent in the first above-entitled action.

Donald Schanbarger, appellant-respondent pro se in the second above-entitled action.

Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. (Peter J. Dooley and Ruth Kessler Toch, Albany, of counsel), for Robert Kellogg, respondent-appellant and Peter Cooper, respondent in the second above-entitled action.

WACHTLER, Judge.

These appeals, both involving actions for false imprisonment, present questions as to the applicability of the prima facie rule and the extent of compensable damages. Since both cases have been before our court previously in the context of criminal appeals, only a cursory review of the facts is necessary. (See People v. Broughton, 30 A.D.2d 813, 292 N.Y.S.2d 164, affd., 23 N.Y.2d 809, 297 N.Y.S.2d 310, 244 N.E.2d 878; People v. Schanbarger, 24 N.Y.2d 288, 300 N.Y.S.2d 100, 248 N.E.2d 16.)

On the evening of November 14, 1967 Susan Broughton was a visitor in a mobile home leased to certain other parties. She was arrested by police officers who, while searching the trailer pursuant to a search warrant, found several pounds of marijuana secreted throughout the premises. Respondent was then brought to the Stony Point Barracks where she was fingerprinted, photographed and subjected to a full body search. Thereafter she was indicted for criminal possession of a dangerous drug in the first degree (Penal Law, § 220.20, as enacted by L.1965, ch. 1030, and repealed by L.1973, ch. 276).

Subsequently the evidence was suppressed on the ground that the search warrant affidavit was insufficient as a matter of law and in a related proceeding the indictment was dismissed. There the County Court found 'not a scintilla of evidence' connecting Broughton with the criminal activity (43 A.D.2d 389, 390, 352 N.Y.S.2d 234, 235). The instant action was commenced and following a bifurcated nonjury trial, claimant was awarded damages for 'lost wages, mental anguish, humiliation and anxiety' together with a sum for legal services rendered in her defense (p. 391, 352 N.Y.S.2d p. 236). The Appellate Division affirmed this judgment.

The second case before us involves a false arrest claim by Donald Schanbarger against the State Trooper who arrested him. As Schanbarger was walking along an East Greenbush road in the early morning hours of April 30, 1968, he was stopped by a trooper and questioned as to his identity and destination. When respondent refused to answer he was arrested for loitering (Penal Law, § 240.35, subd. 6, as enacted by L.1965, ch. 1030, as amd. by L.1968, ch. 668). He was tried before a Justice of the Peace in East Greenbush and convicted. The County Court of Rensselaer County affirmed this judgment. On appeal to our court we concluded that the testimony of the trooper was 'clearly insufficient to establish any basis for a Reasonable suspicion that the Defendant might be engaged or was about to engage in crime' and the judgment was reversed (People v. Schanbarger, 24 N.Y.2d 288, 291, 300 N.Y.S.2d 100, 102, 248 N.E.2d 16, 17; emphasis in original).

Following his exoneration Schanbarger instituted this action against the trooper alleging several causes of action including one for false arrest. After a nonjury trial in Supreme Court, Rensselaer County, judgment was granted to Schanbarger on the false arrest action 'for the indignity of being arrested and imprisoned and for the humiliation he suffered as a result of the arrest.' Both parties appealed to the Appellate Division which affirmed the judgment in favor of Schanbarger (Schanbarger v. Kellogg, 43 A.D.2d 362, 352 N.Y.S.2d 50).

Both appellants assert the prima facie rule as grounds for reversal. In Broughton the claim is made that reasonable cause to believe she had committed a crime should be presumed by virtue of her arraignment and subsequent indictment by the Grand Jury. Similarly, in Schanbarger the appellant contends that the arraignment constituted a judicial recognition of probable cause to arrest which should generate a presumption in a subsequent action for false arrest. A corollary of the prima facie rule is that the presumption is rebuttable only where the plaintiff establishes fraud, perjury or the misrepresentation or falsification of evidence. It is our view that the prima facie rule applies only in causes of action for malicious prosecution and is totally misplaced when applied in false imprisonment actions.

Our conclusion is founded on the common-law distinctions between malicious prosecution and false imprisonment. Although these are kindred actions, each protects a different personal interest and is composed of different elements. Unfortunately, in cases where both false imprisonment and malicious prosecution are alleged, the opinions fail to differentiate between these torts thereby generating confusion as to the pertinency of malice and want of probable cause. (See, e.g., Langley v. City of New York, 40 A.D.2d 844, 337 N.Y.S.2d 460, affd., 34 N.Y.2d 885, 359 N.Y.S.2d 281, 316 N.E.2d 716; Schultz v. Greenwood Cemetery, 190 N.Y. 276, 83 N.E. 41; see, generally, Prosser, Torts (4th ed.), § 11; False imprisonment; liability of private citizen for false arrest by officer, Ann., 21 A.L.R.2d 643.) A careful analysis of the purpose and elements of the respective torts illustrates the distinct nature of each and the inapplicability of the prima facie rule in false imprisonment cases. (Compare Prosser, Torts (4th ed.), False Imprisonment, § 11, with Malicious Prosecution, § 119; 2 Alexander, the Law of Arrest, False Imprisonment, ch. 27, with Malicious Prosecution, ch. 26.)

The action for false imprisonment is derived from the ancient common-law action of trespass and protects the personal interest of freedom from restraint of movement. Whenever a person unlawfully obstructs or deprives another of his freedom to choose his own location, that person will be liable for that interference (Restatement, 2d, Torts, § 35, comment H). To establish this cause of action the plaintiff must show that: (1) the defendant intended to confine him, (2) the plaintiff was conscious of the confinement, (3) the plaintiff did not consent to the confinement and (4) the confinement was not otherwise privileged (Restatement, 2d, Torts, § 35; but see Prosser, Torts (4th ed.), § 11, which rejects the requirement that the plaintiff must be conscious of the confinement). The great weight of authority, including New York, recognizes the rule that neither actual malice nor want of probable cause is an essential element of an action for false imprisonment (Marks v. Townsend, 97 N.Y. 590; Malice and want of probable cause as element or factor of action for false imprisonment, Ann., 19 A.L.R. 671; Ann., 137 A.L.R. 504; 32 Am.Jur., False Imprisonment, § 27). This is in direct contrast with the elements comprising a malicious prosecution action.

The tort of malicious prosecution protects the personal interest of freedom from unjustifiable litigation (Prosser, Torts (4th ed.), § 119; False imprisonment; liability of private citizen for false arrest by officer, Ann., 21 A.L.R.2d 643). The essence of malicious prosecution is the perversion of proper legal procedures. Thus, it has been held that some sort of prior judicial proceeding is the Sine qua non of a cause of action in malicious prosecution (Raschid v. News Syndicate Co., 265 N.Y. 1, 191 N.E. 713). Such a judicial proceeding may be either an evaluation by a Magistrate of an affidavit supporting an arrest warrant application, or an arraignment or an indictment by a Grand Jury. The elements of the tort of malicious prosecution are: (1) the commencement or continuation of a criminal proceeding by the defendant against the plaintiff, (2) the termination of the proceeding in favor of the accused, (3) the absence of probable cause for the criminal proceeding and (4) actual malice (Prosser, Torts (4th ed.), § 119). Where the plaintiff institutes a malicious prosecution action he must plead the lack of probable cause (Malicious Prosecution--Probable Cause, Ann., 14 A.L.R.2d 264). A contrary rule would be against public policy as tending to discourage prosecutions for crime or the vindication of civil rights. Despite the clear and fundamental differences between malicious prosecution and false imprisonment, the concepts are easily intermingled in the arrest situation.

The distinction between false imprisonment and malicious prosecution in the area of arrest depends on whether or not the arrest was made pursuant to a warrant. As noted in the Restatement, 2d, an unlawful detention gives rise to a cause of action for false imprisonment 'except where the confinement was by arrest under a valid process issued by a court having jurisdiction' (Restatement, 2d, Torts, § 35, comment A; Prosser, Torts (4th ed.), § 11). When an unlawful arrest has been effected by a warrant an appropriate form of action is malicio prosecution. This distinction is critical not only because it affects the allegations and proof but also because it brings the prima facie rule into operation.

Essentially this rule recognizes the prima facie validity of actions where there has been a judicial evaluation. Accordingly, the Magistrate's consideration of the arrest warrant application will generate a presumption that the arrest was issued on probable cause. However, this reasoning is not applicable where the arrest is made without a warrant.

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1102 cases
  • Donovan v. Briggs
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of New York
    • February 26, 2003
    ...(3) he did not consent to the confinement; and (4) the confinement was not otherwise privileged. Broughton v. State, 37 N.Y.2d 451, 456, 373 N.Y.S.2d 87, 335 N.E.2d 310, cert. denied, 423 U.S. 929, 96 S.Ct. 277, 46 L.Ed.2d 257 (1975). The elements of a malicious prosecution claim are: (1) t......
  • Moroughan v. Cnty. of Suffolk
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • January 20, 2021
    ...the plaintiff did not consent to the confinement and (4) the confinement was not otherwise privileged." Broughton v. New York , 37 N.Y.2d 451, 373 N.Y.S.2d 87, 335 N.E.2d 310, 314 (1975). Under § 1983, a claim for false arrest is substantially the same as a claim for false imprisonment unde......
  • Rosario v. Amalgamated Ladies' Garment Cutters' Union, Local 10, I.L.G.W.U.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • July 17, 1979
    ...the third degree, 25 one of the offenses charged against appellees, 26 which would justify the arrest. Broughton v. State, 37 N.Y.2d 451, 458, 373 N.Y.S.2d 87, 95, 335 N.E.2d 310, 314, Cert. denied, 423 U.S. 929, 96 S.Ct. 277, 46 L.Ed.2d 257 (1975). However, the record reveals a sharp dispu......
  • Asgari v. City of Los Angeles
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • June 2, 1997
    ...following arraignment on formal charges is consistent with the rule recognized in the State of New York. (Broughton v. State (1975) 37 N.Y.2d 451, 459, 373 N.Y.S.2d 87, 335 N.E.2d 310 ["Where a plaintiff successfully establishes liability for false imprisonment his damages will be measured ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT