Leisure v. Hicks

• Decision Date: 10 March 1953
• Docket Number: No. 101,101
• Citation: 336 Mich. 148,57 N.W.2d 473
• Parties: LEISURE v. HICKS.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 473

57 N.W.2d 473

336 Mich. 148

LEISURE v. HICKS.

No. 101.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

March 10, 1953.

Sigler & Anderson, Lansing, for defendant and appellant.

Roy T. Conley, Lansing, for plaintiff and appellee.

Before the Entire Bench, except CARR, J.

ADAMS, Justice.

This is an action at law for damages resulting from the alleged illegal arrest and detention of the plaintiff.

On July 4, 1949, the defendant, a deputy sheriff of Ingham county, arrested the plaintiff and delivered him to the custody of the sheriff. He remained in such custody until July 8. Plaintiff claimed the arrest was illegal and the detention unreasonable. Upon trial before a jury, a verdict was returned for the plaintiff for illegal arrest and judgment entered against the defendant. After defendant's motion for a new trial had been denied, this appeal was taken.

The facts are substantially undisputed. Plaintiff, a married man with several children, was living apart from his wife in the city of Lansing. On June 30, 1949, the wife went to a justice of the peace in Lansing township and complained of her husband's illicit relations with their 10 year old daughter. The justice of the peace called the Ingham county chief deputy sheriff and was told that an investigation would be made. The chief deputy sheriff then asked the wife to come to his office where she again complained of her husband's conduct. No progress was made in the investigation and on July 3 another deputy sheriff in the sheriff's office at Mason called the defendant in reference to the complaint. The defendant and deputy sheriff Cameron then went to the plaintiff's wife's home and talked with her about the matter.

The following day, July 4, defendant and deputy sheriff Cameron brought the wife and her 10 year old daughter, Madeline, to the sheriff's office in Lansing and talked with each of them. As a result of their conference with the daughter, a series of questions and answers were typed and then read to both the daughter and mother and thereafter signed by the daughter. The answers described acts of the plaintiff which, if true, would have constituted the commission of a felony. Defendant testified that he believed the statement to be true and because of the serious nature of the alleged felony, he and deputy Cameron started a search for the plaintiff. He was eventually located at the home of his sister in Lansing and about 11:00 p. m. that night he was arrested and taken to the county jail by the two deputies.

On July 5 plaintiff's attorney was notified of his imprisonment but indicated no interest in his immediate release. That same day, plaintiff was interviewed for approximately five minutes at the county jail and upon a denial of guilt was returned to his cell. That afternoon, defendant conferred with the prosecuting attorney of Ingham county and was advised to hold plaintiff in jail and continue the investigation. Later the defendant and a detective sergeant of the Michigan state police went to the wife's home and talked with the three older sisters obtaining little or no further information in reference to the alleged crime.

The next morning, July 6, the defendant and a Michigan state police detective sergeant again talked with Leisure in the sheriff's office and suggested that a lie detector test be taken, which he agreed to do. The test was taken on July 7 and shortly thereafter the defendant took the plaintiff to the office of the prosecuting attorney who, after learning the result of the lie detector test, conferred with the plaintiff, suggested a physical examination of three older daughters of the plaintiff, and then recommended to the defendant that he return the plaintiff to the county jail, which was done.

The following day, July 8, the three older daughters were given an examination by a local doctor and as soon as the report was available the defendant took it to the prosecutor's office but found that the prosecutor had left the city and would be absent for several days. The plaintiff was then released from jail and taken to his mother's home.

At no time was the plaintiff misused and it was neither alleged in the pleadings nor proved that defendant was guided by malice, fraud, or other improper motives in his actions. Defendant had been a police officer for approximately 10 years and his only previous contact with the plaintiff occurred on March 15, 1949, when he picked up the plaintiff at his place of employment and had him detained at the county jail overnight, a petition having been filed in the probate court alleging that he was mentally ill and dangerous. In that instance no commitment was ordered by the probate judge.

It is the position of the defendant and appellant that, there being no real dispute as to the facts, it was error to submit to the jury the question of whether defendant had probable cause to believe that plaintiff had committed a felony. He contends that the issue should have been determined by the court as a matter of law.

This problem has been before this Court frequently as evidenced by the long list of precedents referred to in both the appellant's and appellee's briefs, and in some instances we have said that where the facts are undisputed, the question of probable cause is one of law, for the court. Schneider v. Shepherd, 192 Mich. 82, 158 N.W. 182, L.R.A.1916F, 399.

On the other hand, there has been reluctance to apply an absolute rule to each case, as aptly illustrated in Filer v. Smith, 96 Mich. 347, 55 N.W. 999, 1002, where the rule as above stated was quoted followed by the observation:

'But it is apparent at a glance that the rule is not one susceptible of establishing a general test, by which the question may be determined in all cases.'

Although the facts...