Stebbins v. WASHINGTON METRO. AREA TRANSIT

• Decision Date: 06 March 1985
• Docket Number: No. 84-132.,84-132.
• Citation: 495 A.2d 741
• Parties: Emmett J. STEBBINS, Appellant, v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, et al., Appellees.
• Court: D.C. Court of Appeals

495 A.2d 741

Emmett J. STEBBINS, Appellant, v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, et al., Appellees.

No. 84-132.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

Submitted February 25, 1985.

Decided March 6, 1985.^*

Emmett J. Stebbins filed a brief pro se.

David G. Dulansey and Sara E. Lister, Washington, D.C., were on brief for appellees.

Before PRYOR, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and TERRY, Associate Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Stebbins appeals an adverse ruling of the trial court granting summary judgment to the defendants in his suit for false arrest and malicious prosecution. We affirm for the reasons set forth by the trial court in its written order which is attached hereto and incorporated herein.

Affirmed.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIVIL DIVISION

Civil No. 8899-79

Civil I Judge Goodrich

EMMETT J. STEBBINS

v.

WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, et al.

ORDER

Plaintiff has sued the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), Transit police officers Church and Porter, and the District of Columbia for false arrest and imprisonment and malicious prosecution.

The facts giving rise to plaintiff's cause of action may be summarized as follows: On February 16, 1979, at approximately 5:45 p.m., plaintiff was observed by undercover transit officers, Church and Porter, entering through the rear of a Metrobus in which the officers were riding. After traveling approximately two more blocks, and without plaintiff having given any indication to the driver that a fare had otherwise been paid, Church and Porter arrested plaintiff. Officer Church . . . (prepared the necessary paperwork) . . . and plaintiff was charged with 1) failing to pay the established fare; and 2) entering through the rear of a bus.

Plaintiff, appearing pro se, was tried on April 11, 1979. On his cross examination of officers Church and Porter, plaintiff sought to elicit testimony that a bus transfer, which plaintiff offered into evidence at trial, was in his possession on the date in question. The officers did not refute their direct examination testimony, consistent with the summary outlined above, and in which no mention is made of plaintiff's holding, or exhibiting a bus transfer.

At the Court's request, the District dropped its first count, failure to pay the established fare. Subsequently, and without ever testifying on his own behalf, plaintiff moved for a judgment of acquittal. Despite its rejecting the argument advanced by plaintiff in support of its Motion, the Court found plaintiff "Not Guilty" with the following qualification.

"Well, we are going to give him the benefit of the doubt in this case, but I'm going to admonish him the next time to enter the front door, show the operator the transfer—give it to him. That's what you're supposed to do. Give you a break this time."

This cause of action followed.

WMATA moves to dismiss plaintiff's claim arguing that it enjoys absolute immunity from liability for the actions of its transit officers in undertaking the arrest and charging of the plaintiff. In support, WMATA relies upon Section 80 of the Interstate Compact entered into by the States of Maryland and Virginia and the District of Columbia, Pub.L. No. 89-774, 80 Stat. 1350 (1966) and which sets forth in pertinent part that:

WMATA shall be liable . . . for its torts. . . committed in the conduct of any proprietary function, in accordance with the law of the applicable signatory (including rules on conflict of laws), but shall not be liable for any torts occurring in the performance of a governmental function.

In Hall v. WMATA, 468 A.2d 970 (D.C. App.1983) the Court of Appeals, in upholding the trial Court's granting of Summary Judgment for WMATA, ruled, pursuant to Section 80 of the instant Compact, that WMATA is immune from liability for false arrest, malicious prosecution and abuse of process for the actions of its transit officers who had arrested and charged appellant, an employee of WMATA, with embezzling $8.00 from a subway farecard machine. In Hall, plaintiff-appellant was also acquitted of the charge.

This Court finds the Court of Appeals holding in Hall on all fours with the case at bar¹ and warranting therefore, the granting of defendant WMATA's Motion.²

Officers Church and Porter have also moved for Summary Judgment claiming that the undisputed facts in this case demonstrate probable cause as a matter of law constituting an absolute defense to plaintiff's claim. See e.g. Gueory v. District of Columbia, 408 A.2d 967 (D.C.App.1979). The Court agrees.

In Gabrou v. May Dept. Stores Co., 462 A.2d 1102 (D.C.App.1983), an action for, inter alia, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's directed verdict for defendant.

The Court found that the evidence had conclusively demonstrated that defendant's security personnel had detained plaintiff "out of a good faith, reasonable belief that he was shoplifting." Id. at 1104.³

In the instant case officer Porter testified that he saw the plaintiff, Stebbins, enter the bus through the rear door, and take a seat in the rear of the bus and make no effort to go to the front of the bus to pay his fare. (Trial Transcript, page 13, lines 7-10). This testimony would indicate that Officer Porter had a `good faith, reasonable belief' that Stebbins had failed to pay his fare, and that there was a valid reason to arrest and detain him.

Plaintiff, however, has never refuted nor contradicted the testimony of Officer Porter. Acting as his own counsel, Stebbins never gave sworn testimony as to his own actions, but attempted instead to get Officer Porter to recognize a transfer that Stebbins claimed he had in his possession. As noted, the Officer denied that invitation.

The Court agrees with plaintiff that "the criminal record and transcript speaks for itself." Plaintiff has referred this Court to nothing in the record that would tend to demonstrate, giving the plaintiff the benefit of every favorable inference, that Officers Porter and Church acted with anything less than "a good faith, reasonable belief" that plaintiff had violated the law.

Judge Neilson's remark, while unquestionably acquitting plaintiff of the...