Stalter v. State
| Decision Date | 18 March 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 73088-1.,73088-1. |
| Citation | 86 P.3d 1159,151 Wash.2d 148 |
| Parties | Kevin L. STALTER, Respondent, v. STATE of Washington; Washington State Patrol, a political subdivision of the State of Washington; Jeremy Reid, Badge No. 562, individually and in his official capacity as a member of the Washington State Patrol, Defendants, and Pierce County, a political subdivision of the State of Washington, Petitioner. David Brooks, a single person, Respondent, v. Pierce County, a political subdivision of the State of Washington; and "John Doe," Petitioners. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Ronald La Mar Williams, Pierce Co. Pros Office, Tacoma, for Petitioner.
Liam Michael Golden, Office of the Prosecuting Attorney, Chehalis; Lance M. Hester, Tacoma, for Respondent.
We granted review of a Court of Appeals decision reversing summary judgments in two Pierce County Superior Court cases. In each case, a person who was held in the Pierce County Jail under an arrest warrant issued for another person brought suit against Pierce County claiming damages for the detention. The principal issue before us in these consolidated cases is whether the Court of Appeals wrongly concluded that jail personnel have a duty to investigate the identity of a jail detainee once they have been put on notice that they may be holding the wrong individual.
We hold that the Court of Appeals erred when it concluded that mere notice to jail personnel that they may be holding the wrong individual imposes a duty on them to investigate claims of misidentification. We determine, however, that jail personnel do have a duty to take steps to promptly release a detainee once they know or should know, based on information provided to them, that the person they are holding is not the person named in the arrest warrant. We, therefore, affirm the Court of Appeals in part and reverse it in part.
On August 9, 1997, Kevin Lee Stalter was arrested by a Washington State Patrol trooper under a Pierce County warrant that had been issued for the arrest of one Robert John Stalter.1 Although the warrant did not set forth any aliases for the person named in the warrant, a printout from a state patrol dispatcher listed the name "Kevin Lee Stalter" as an alias for Robert John Stalter. Kevin Stalter indicated to the arresting trooper that he was not Robert John Stalter but explained that he had a brother with that name who had used the alias "Kevin" in the past. Kevin Stalter's physical appearance differed from the individual described in the warrant by 27 pounds, four inches in height, and eye color. Furthermore, Kevin Stalter's birth date differed by over three years from the birth date listed on the warrant for Robert John Stalter.
After his arrest, Kevin Stalter was brought to the Pierce County Jail for booking. While at the jail, Stalter was adamant that he had been misidentified. Consequently, the booking officer asked a senior officer for advice on how to deal with the situation. Stalter was then booked under the name Kevin Lee Stalter, rather than Robert John Stalter.
At the time of Kevin Stalter's booking there was a file relating to Robert John Stalter at the jail. This file contained Robert John Stalter's photograph and information regarding the subject's birth date, height, weight, hair color, eye color, and scars. The jail booking officer was provided with a copy of the warrant under which the arrest of Kevin Stalter had been effected, and it referenced Robert John Stalter's file. Nevertheless, the booking officer did not retrieve or request the file because he was not aware of any policy requiring him to do so. The jail did, however, have a policy and procedure manual that required booking officers to obtain an extensive list of information from the individual being admitted to jail in order to make "a positive identification."2 Stalter's Clerk's Papers (SCP) at 114.
Two days after being booked into the jail, Stalter was brought before the Pierce County Superior Court for his arraignment. At that time, Robert John Stalter's probation officer informed the court that the wrong man was in custody. Kevin Stalter was then released from jail.
Kevin Stalter thereafter brought suit against Pierce County and others in Pierce County Superior Court for, inter alia, false imprisonment and negligence. Pierce County then moved for a summary judgment dismissing Stalter's complaint. The trial court granted the county's motion, reasoning that the jail had no duty to investigate Kevin Stalter's claim of misidentification because any such duty resided with the arresting officer. After Kevin Stalter's motion for reconsideration was denied, he appealed to Division Two of the Court of Appeals.
On October 9, 1998, David W. Brooks, Jr. was stopped for a traffic violation by a Fife police officer. When the officer was informed by a dispatcher that there was a North Carolina warrant for the arrest of a David W. Brooks, Jr., he placed Brooks under arrest. The officer was advised that the North Carolina warrant described an individual remarkably similar in appearance to the person before him in terms of name, race, and date of birth. Despite Brooks's assertion that he had never been to North Carolina, the officer was not deterred from arresting him. At the Pierce County Jail, Brooks was booked notwithstanding his claims of misidentification.
Brooks appeared in Pierce County Superior Court on October 12, 1998. He did not, however, inform the court at that time that there had been a misidentification. Apparently, he had advised his appointed counsel prior to the hearing that he was not the individual named in the warrant, but the attorney failed to call this to the attention of the court, and Brooks was not provided with an opportunity to speak directly to the court. The trial court set an extradition hearing for November 12, 1998, and ordered Brooks held without bail until that date.
Although Pierce County received a facsimile copy of the warrant on the same day that Brooks was arrested, Pierce County contacted the North Carolina authorities on October 14, 1998, to request another copy of the warrant and a photograph and fingerprints of the person named in the warrant. Pierce County received a copy of the fingerprints on November 3, 1998. A technician, who reviewed the fingerprints that same day, concluded that they were not Brooks's fingerprints. Brooks was then released from custody.
After his release, Brooks filed a complaint against Pierce County in Pierce County Superior Court alleging false imprisonment, negligence, and a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Subsequently, Pierce County moved for summary judgment. In response, Brooks proffered the same sections of the jail's policy and procedure manual as had Stalter. Brooks also offered the deposition testimony of a county official who indicated that there is no policy or procedure to govern a situation where there is a question as to a person's identity. Another county official stated in a deposition that if a detainee's fingerprints do not match a file in their database, then no other action is taken to identify the detainee.3
The trial court granted Pierce County's motion, concluding that there was no evidence of a constitutional violation, and that any possible liability for the county ended when Brooks was brought before a judge because he was thereafter held pursuant to a court order. Brooks appealed that decision to Division Two of the Court of Appeals, which later consolidated his case and Stalter's case.
The Court of Appeals reversed the orders granting summary judgment to Pierce County on Stalter's and Brooks's negligence and false imprisonment claims. Stalter v. State, 113 Wash.App. 1, 4, 51 P.3d 837 (2002). It did, however, affirm the dismissal of Brooks's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim. Fundamental to its decision was its reasoning "that once jail management is on notice that it may be holding a detainee under authority of a warrant erroneously, it has a duty, at a minimum, to investigate further." Id. at 13, 51 P.3d 837. Pierce County petitioned this court for review of the Court of Appeals' decision to reverse the judgments of the trial courts. Brooks, in turn, petitioned for review of the Court of Appeals' decision to affirm the trial courts dismissal of his § 1983 claim. We granted both petitions. Stalter v. State, 149 Wash.2d 1016, 72 P.3d 763 (2003).
Summary judgment is proper if "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and [] the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." CR 56(c). Viewing all facts and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, the moving party has the burden of showing there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact. Berger v. Sonneland, 144 Wash.2d 91, 102-03, 26 P.3d 257 (2001). "Appellate review of summary judgment is de novo...." Michak v. Transnation Title Ins. Co., 148 Wash.2d 788, 794, 64 P.3d 22 (2003).
Pierce County contends that the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the dismissal of both plaintiffs' negligence and false imprisonment claims, asserting that imposing a duty on jailers to investigate particularly persistent claims of misidentification would place an unreasonable burden on jail management. Stalter and Brooks contend that it is only reasonable to require jail officials to know who it is that they are detaining, and that imposition of such a duty would not be burdensome, particularly considering that the written policies of the Pierce County Jail require "a positive identification" of an individual during booking. SCP at 114.
"The elements of negligence are duty, breach, causation, and injury." Keller v. City of Spokane, 146 Wash.2d 237, 242, 44 P.3d 845 (2002). It is well established that a jail is liable for false imprisonment if it holds an individual for an unreasonable time after it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Seattle v. Mighty Movers, Inc.
...(2003).3 Analysis We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standard as the trial court. Stalter v. State, 151 Wash.2d 148, 155, 86 P.3d 1159 (2004); Clawson v. Grays Harbor Coll. Dist. No. 2, 148 Wash.2d 528, 536, 61 P.3d 1130 (2003). Summary judgment is appropriate ......
-
Sanders v. City of Seattle
...In this case we are reviewing a grant of summary judgment and thus, we apply the same standard as the trial court. Stalter v. State, 151 Wash.2d 148, 155, 86 P.3d 1159 (2004); Clawson v. Grays Harbor Coll. Dist. No. 2, 148 Wash.2d 528, 536, 61 P.3d 1130 (2003). Summary judgment is appropria......
-
Estate of Wasilchen v. Gohrman
...was the proximate cause of the injury.” Folsom v. Burger King, 135 Wash.2d 658, 958 P.2d 301, 308 (1998); see also Stalter v. State, 151 Wash.2d 148, 86 P.3d 1159, 1162 (2004). Because “a negligence action will not lie if a defendant owed a plaintiff no duty of care, the primary question is......
-
Mancini v. City of Tacoma
...and any negligent acts of police throughout that interaction. Id. at 545, 442 P.3d 608.¶ 40 Further, our decision in Stalter v. State , 151 Wash.2d 148, 86 P.3d 1159 (2004), addressed the scope of the duty to release the wrong suspect. In Stalter , two plaintiffs brought separate false impr......