Steinberg v. State, 79-202-A

• Decision Date: 27 March 1981
• Docket Number: No. 79-202-A,79-202-A
• Citation: 427 A.2d 338
• Parties: Ellen F. STEINBERG and Tami A. Cox v. STATE. ppeal.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

Page 338

427 A.2d 338

Ellen F. STEINBERG and Tami A. Cox v. STATE.

No. 79-202-Appeal.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

March 27, 1981.

Aram K. Berberian, Warwick, for plaintiffs.

Dennis J. Roberts II, Atty. Gen., Eileen G. Cooney, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant.

OPINION

BEVILACQUA, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal by the plaintiffs, Ellen F. Steinberg and Tami A. Cox, from a judgment in the Superior Court dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint for an alleged violation of their civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (1974) and for false imprisonment, upon the defendant's motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs filed a complaint in Superior Court alleging that on December 4, 1978, they were arrested by the Rhode Island State Police without an arrest warrant and were not arraigned until some fifty hours later on December 6. The plaintiffs further alleged that the fifty-hour delay between the arrest and the arraignment constituted an unlawful detention in violation of 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (1974) and Rule 5 of the District Court Rules of Criminal Procedure. Thus, plaintiffs prayed for compensatory and punitive damages, claiming that the State Police had deprived them of their due-process rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution.

After filing their complaint, plaintiffs submitted interrogatories to defendant. Captain Pare of the State Police responded, stating that the officers had arrested plaintiffs at approximately 10 p. m. on Monday, December 4, 1978, at the "so-called Leonard Estate, located at the end of Ocean Avenue, Jamestown, Rhode Island." Captain Pare, who had participated in the investigation leading to the arrest, continued, stating that the State Police went to the location to execute a search warrant issued by a justice of the District Court. Upon arriving at the "Leonard Estate," the police arrested plaintiffs without a warrant and eventually took plaintiffs to the Second Division District Court in Newport for arraignment at noon on December 6, 1978. ¹ Pare contended that the delay in bringing plaintiffs to court for arraignment was caused by several problems. First, plaintiffs identified themselves as "Annie Sprinkle" and "Long Jean Silver." Second, plaintiffs' fingerprints had to be forwarded to the FBI in Washington, D. C. Finally, the police needed more time to inventory evidence seized pursuant to both the initial search warrant and a second search warrant issued on December 5.

Thereafter, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment and an affidavit by Captain Pare substantially identical in content to the responses he had given to plaintiffs' interrogatories. The plaintiffs filed no affidavit in opposing the motion for summary judgment. After a hearing, the trial justice granted the motion, holding that "under the circumstances of this case, the delay between plaintiffs' arrest and their arraignment did not violate plaintiffs' rights to due process and their right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure."

The sole issue we shall consider is whether the trial justice properly considered and granted defendant's motion for summary judgment.

Essentially, plaintiffs argue that the common law, Federal and State Constitutions, as well as Dist. R. Crim. P. 5(a), guarantee that an arrested person be brought before a magistrate for arraignment without unreasonable delay and that an unreasonable delay violates an arrestee's rights and makes the arresting officer liable in damages for the false imprisonment. The defendant counters that the prompt-arraignment requirement "does not rise to the level of a constitutional right" and therefore plaintiffs have no cause of action under § 1983. ² Additionally, defendant argues that the delay in the instant case did not constitute an "unnecessary delay" under Dist. R. Crim. P. 5(a).

When deciding a motion for summary judgment, the trial justice must keep in mind that a motion for "(s)ummary judgment is a drastic remedy and should be cautiously applied." Ardente v. Horan, 117 R.I. 254, 256-57, 366 A.2d 162, 164 (1976). However,

"one who opposes (such) a motion * * * may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleading. He has an affirmative duty to set forth specific facts which show that there is a genuine issue of fact to be resolved at trial. If he does not do so, summary judgment, if appropriate, will be entered against him." Id. at 257-58, 366 A.2d at 164.

It is not, however, an absolute requirement of Rule 56 that the nonmoving party file an affidavit in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. If the affidavit of the moving party does not establish the absence of a material factual issue, the trial justice should deny the motion for a summary judgment despite the failure of the nonmoving party to file a counteraffidavit. See Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 159-60, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 1609-10, 26 L.Ed.2d 142, 155 (1970). And in ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the trial justice must look for factual issues, not determine them. Hodge v. Osteopathic General Hospital of Rhode Island, 107 R.I. 135, 142, 265 A.2d 733, 737 (1970). Accordingly, when considering such a motion, "the trial justice may not pass upon the weight or credibility of the evidence." Doyle v. State, R.I., 411 A.2d 907, 909 (1980). Instead, the justice's only function is to determine whether there are any issues involving material facts. Industrial National Bank v. Peloso, R.I., 397 A.2d 1312, 1313 (1979).

As a prerequisite to an order for summary judgment, the lower court must review the...