Harder v. Edwards, s. 4D14–1732

Citation174 So.3d 524
Decision Date26 August 2015
Docket Number4D14–1928.,Nos. 4D14–1732,s. 4D14–1732
PartiesWilliam HARDER, individually and as a Detective with the City of Fort Lauderdale Police Department, The TJX Companies, Inc., and Derek Carlson, Appellants, v. Latoya EDWARDS, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Robert H. Schwartz of McIntosh Schwartz, P.L., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant William Harder.

Kara Berard Rockenbach and Kristi Bergemann Rothell of Methe & Rockenbach, P.A., West Palm Beach, and Kera E. Hagan of Anderson, Mayfield, Hagan & Thron, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellants The TJX Companies, Inc., and Derek Carlson.

Rosemary Wilder of Marlow, Adler, Abrams, Newman & Lewis, Coral Gables, for appellee.

Opinion

GROSS, J.

Does the plaintiff's chosen legal remedy—the tort of false imprisonment—provide her compensation for enduring a horrible experience? On October 2, 2008, Latoya Edwards's wallet was stolen. Early on a June morning in 2009, in front of her family, she was arrested and taken to jail on a warrant accusing her of passing a fraudulent $281 check at a T.J. Maxx retail store. Edwards was the innocent victim of identity fraud; the true wrongdoer had used her stolen driver's license to complete the check transaction. Edwards recovered damages on a false imprisonment claim against the store, its investigative employee, and the police detective who orchestrated her arrest.

We reverse the judgment against the store and its employee because their cooperation with the detective's investigation amounted to neither actual detention nor active instigation of the arrest. We reverse the judgment against the detective, because, even after removing all false statements from his warrant affidavit, the arrest warrant nonetheless was supported by probable cause.

The three defendants challenge the propriety of the trial court's rulings on their motions for directed verdicts. For this reason, we state the facts in the light most favorable to Edwards, the nonmoving party. See Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Kayton, 104 So.3d 1145, 1149 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (“An appellate court reviewing a ruling on a motion for directed verdict must view the evidence and all inferences of fact in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party.”) (citation omitted). In doing so, we determine the credibility issues in favor of Edwards.

The Investigation

Months before Edwards's arrest, Detective William Harder began investigating a fraudulent check ring based on information from an informant. Detective Harder placed a wire on the informant and gathered incriminating information, including evidence that the suspect had been using a computer software program—typically reserved for small businesses—to produce counterfeit checks. Over time, Detective Harder identified other “ringleaders” in the fraudulent check creation process. However, before reeling in the big fish, he wanted first to round up the minor players—those who actually cashed the checks.

To further the investigation, Detective Harder provided the account and routing number combinations extracted from the suspect's computer to Certegy, a third-party check verification system used by many businesses, such as T.J. Maxx, to verify the validity of the account and routing number listed on a check. In requesting assistance, Detective Harder wanted Certegy to determine whether the account and routing numbers taken from the suspect's computer matched those used in stores. In due time, Certegy prepared a spreadsheet containing hundreds of potential counterfeit checks fitting this description, around forty of which were cashed at T.J. Maxx stores. None of the checks involved Edwards.

At Certegy's suggestion, in late May, 2009, Detective Harder spoke with Derek Carlson—an investigator for T.J. Maxx—and requested that Carlson pull copies of the suspected counterfeit checks used at T.J. Maxx stores, as listed on the Certegy spreadsheet, and recover any surveillance video of the transactions if available. In the initial conversation, Detective Harder summarized his investigation for Carlson and said that it appeared many of the persons cashing the checks were “using [their] true identities.” Detective Harder also insisted that time was of the essence, since he was planning a “warrant blitz” on June 10, wherein he would arrest each suspect involved in the check cashing scheme at the same time.

In the ensuing days, Carlson did as instructed and made copies of the suspected checks contained in the Certegy list. As encouraged by statute,1 each scanned check had the customer's driver's license number handwritten on its face. While performing the task, Carlson noticed there were certain similarities among the checks—all were between $200 and $500 and had pictures of cartoon characters. On his own, Carlson searched T.J. Maxx's system for similar criteria and made copies of twenty to thirty additional checks meeting this rubric—one of which was cashed by someone using Edwards's identification. Because the check with Edwards's information had been cashed more than sixty days prior to Carlson's investigation, there was no video of the transaction-just the check itself.

On June 2, 2009, Detective Harder e-mailed Carlson a draft affidavit for Carlson to sign. The next day, Detective Harder described the time pressure he was under, stating he was “running like a chicken with [his] head cut off getting all of these arrest warrants ready for [the] big swoop.” Shortly thereafter, Carlson submitted a binder containing the copies of checks he extracted from T.J. Maxx's records—including the additional checks beyond Detective Harder's initial request. Carlson then executed the affidavit, which stated as follows:

Before me, the undersigned sworn law enforcement official, this date, Investigator Derek Carlson, of ... Marmaxx, Inc., parent company of T.J. Maxx, Marshalls, and HomeGoods, who, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and states that he has examined the check numbers bearing the name of the listed ... companies, the drawers thereof, which checks are dated as listed in the amounts listed, made payable to the companies listed, drawn on the listed banks, bearing the drawer's signature as shown, which are all forged or counterfeit checks. That the deponent will assist law enforcement in the full prosecution of this case.
The affidavit is made voluntarily for the purpose of prosecuting those responsible for this act and is to establish the facts listed in the accompanying spreadsheet. As a result, Marmaxx sustained a loss of $13,165.95.

At trial, Carlson testified he never told Detective Harder that Edwards herself submitted the check.2

Detective Harder applied for—and received—an arrest warrant from a circuit judge. However, his affidavit in support of the warrant contained many false facts: that Latoya Edwards[ ] did ... utter, pass, or tender as true a counterfeit note, bank bill, or check draft, made payable to the bearer, knowing the same to be false, altered, forged, or counterfeit;” that Latoya Edwards, did take counterfeit check # 3957, in the amount of $281.38, made payable to T.J. Maxx ... and presented same for payment knowing it to be a counterfeit bank check;” that Edwards was “one of the co-defendants who was recruited” by an organized fraud ring “to cash the counterfeit checks produced illegally;” that Derek Carlson of T.J. Maxx “verified that this check was presented by [Edwards] and that Edwards “used her Florida Driver's License, as identification in presenting the counterfeit check”; and that Edwards got “to keep a portion of the proceeds from the counterfeit checks she cashed.”

The Stolen Wallet

Edwards knew nothing of the gathering storm about to engulf her. On October 2, 2008, Edwards was working as a substitute teacher at Boyd Anderson High School when her wallet went missing after she placed it on a bench. Edwards reported the wallet as stolen to the school's office manager and immediately went to the Department of Motor Vehicles to get a replacement driver's license. Edwards told DMV workers her license had been stolen. However, this information did not make it to the DAVID3 system.

Not long after the wallet's disappearance, Edwards began receiving letters from businesses—including Citibank, Publix, CVS, and Walmart—regarding the possibility that her identity was being used for fraudulent purposes. Edwards advised each business that she was the victim of identity fraud. As the letters kept coming, Edwards again conferred with the school's office manager, who directed her to make a police report with the school resource officer, Tim Doughty. Edwards did as instructed and Doughty provided her with a card and a case number, though not the report itself.

The Arrest and Interrogation

With arrest warrants procured, Detective Harder assembled officer teams to make coordinated arrests around the same time. One of the first on the list was Edwards, who resided in an apartment with her mother, brother, and sister. At around 6:00 a.m., officers arrested Edwards in her bedroom, and led her out of the apartment in handcuffs, in front of her family.

At the station house, Edwards was taken to an interrogation room where the officers took off her handcuffs and chained her leg to a table. There, she met Detective Harder, who questioned her about her involvement in the fraudulent check ring. Edwards told the detective her wallet had been stolen, that she had filled out a police report, that she did not cash the check, and that the phone number and signature on the check were not hers.

Detective Harder directed that Edwards be taken downstairs to be fingerprinted, booked, and placed in a holding cell. Eventually, Edwards was removed from the holding cell and put in a van to be taken to the Broward County jail. Prior to the transport, Edwards again had to complete the booking process. The next morning, at around 3:00 a.m., Edwards's family posted bail and she was released.

Later the same day, Edwards and her family returned to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 cases
  • Creedle v. Miami-Dade Cnty.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • November 9, 2018
    ...legal authority or ‘color of authority’ and 4) which is unreasonable and unwarranted under the circumstances." Harder v. Edwards , 174 So.3d 524, 530 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (quoting Montejo v. Martin Mem'l Med. Ctr., Inc. , 935 So.2d 1266, 1268 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) ). The Court finds that Mr. C......
  • C.F.C. v. Miami-Dade Cnty.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • December 14, 2018
    ...legal authority or ‘color of authority’ and 4) which is unreasonable and unwarranted under the circumstances." Harder v. Edwards , 174 So.3d 524, 530 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (quoting Montejo v. Martin Mem'l Med. Ctr., Inc. , 935 So.2d 1266, 1268 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) ). The Court finds that Plain......
  • Baxter v. Roberts
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • November 30, 2022
    ...of false imprisonment are imprisonment contrary to the plaintiff's will and the unlawfulness of the detention." Harder v. Edwards , 174 So. 3d 524, 530 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (quotation omitted and alteration adopted). Against a law enforcement officer, "probable cause is a complete bar to an ......
  • McDonough v. Mata
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • September 28, 2020
    ...legal authority or ‘color of authority’ and 4) which is unreasonable and unwarranted under the circumstances." Harder v. Edwards , 174 So. 3d 524, 530 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). Here, Plaintiff alleges he spoke at the July 27, 2016 meeting and that Officer Wright ordered him to leave. He does not......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Physical torts
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Florida Causes of Action
    • April 1, 2022
    ..., 270 So.3d 417, 421 (4th DCA 2019). 2. City of Boca Raton v. Basso, 242 So.3d 1141, 1142 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018). 3. Harder v. Edwards, 174 So.3d 524 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). 4. Laguerre v. City of Coral Springs , 673 So.2d 60, 61 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). 5. Jackson v. Navarro , 665 So.2d 340 (Fla. 4t......

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