Torrez v. Knowlton

• Decision Date: 12 August 2003
• Docket Number: No. 2 CA-CV 2002-0087.,2 CA-CV 2002-0087.
• Citation: 205 Ariz. 550,73 P.3d 1285
• Parties: Aurelio TORREZ, a single man, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Deputy J. KNOWLTON, a single man, and Clarence Dupnik, Sheriff of Pima County, Arizona, Defendants/Appellees.
• Court: Arizona Court of Appeals

73 P.3d 1285

205 Ariz. 550

Aurelio TORREZ, a single man, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Deputy J. KNOWLTON, a single man, and Clarence Dupnik, Sheriff of Pima County, Arizona, Defendants/Appellees.

No. -0087.

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2, Department B.

August 12, 2003.

Monroe & Associates, P.C., By Karl MacOmber, Tucson, for Plaintiff/Appellant.

Barbara LaWall, Pima County Attorney, By David L. Berkman, Tucson, for Defendants/Appellees.

OPINION

DRUKE, J. (Retired).

¶ 1 A Pima County deputy sheriff arrested Aurelio Torrez on a warrant that the issuing court had quashed some seven months before the arrest. Torrez sued the sheriff and the deputy, claiming false arrest and a civil rights violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. After the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the sheriff and the deputy on both claims, ruling that "legal justification existed, as a matter of law," to arrest Torrez and that his federal civil rights had not been violated. We affirm.

Standard of Review

¶ 2 We review de novo a trial court's granting of summary judgment. Pleak v. Entrada Prop. Owners' Ass'n, 205 Ariz. 471, 73 P.3d 602 (App.2003). Under our rules of civil procedure, a trial court properly grants summary judgment when "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Ariz. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1), 16 A.R.S., Pt. 2. Accordingly, a trial court may grant summary judgment if, based on the undisputed, material facts, reasonable people could not agree with a party's claim or defense. Orme Sch. v. Reeves, 166 Ariz. 301, 802 P.2d 1000 (1990). Because the parties in this case do not dispute the following material facts, we limit our review to the trial court's application of the law to these facts in deciding whether the court properly granted summary judgment. See Pleak.

Facts

¶ 3 In October 1999, the superior court issued an arrest warrant for Torrez after, through no fault of his own, he failed to appear for a hearing in a paternity case. Consistent with standard procedure, the clerk of the court sent a duplicate copy of the warrant to the sheriff's office. The following month, the court quashed the warrant, based on the parties' stipulation, but the clerk neglected to follow standard procedure and notify the sheriff's office that the warrant had been quashed. Had the clerk done so, a sheriff's office employee would have stamped the word "quashed" on the duplicate copy and sent it back to the court. But, because the clerk failed to follow standard procedure, the duplicate remained in the sheriff's file, and the warrant stayed active in the computer database, until the deputy stopped Torrez for a traffic violation in June 2000. During the stop, the deputy called the sheriff's office; when the computer database showed an active warrant for Torrez, the duplicate was manually located to confirm the warrant. The deputy then arrested Torrez on the warrant and took him to jail. Torrez later filed claims of false arrest and a civil rights violation against the sheriff and the deputy. He appeals from the trial court's granting of summary judgment in their favor on the false arrest claim.¹

Discussion

¶ 4 As he did below in opposing summary judgment, Torrez correctly asserts that the tort of false arrest occurs when a person is unlawfully detained without consent. See Slade v. City of Phoenix, 112 Ariz. 298, 541 P.2d 550 (1975) (unlawful detention essential element of false arrest and false imprisonment); see also Cullison v. City of Peoria, 120 Ariz. 165, 584 P.2d 1156 (1978) (false imprisonment defined as detention of person without consent and without lawful authority); Reams v. City of Tucson, 145 Ariz. 340, 701 P.2d 598 (App.1985) (person falsely arrested when detained without consent and without lawful authority); 1 Dan B. Dobbs, The Law of Torts § 36, at 67 (2001) (officer commits false arrest by intentionally detaining person against person's will); W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on The Law of Torts § 11, at 50 (5th ed.1984) (person's submission to arrest effected without legal authority constitutes false arrest). Torrez thus argues that the tort of false arrest occurred here because his arrest was based on a quashed warrant and, therefore, was illegal. In support of his position, Torrez relies primarily on a criminal case decided by our supreme court, State v. Evans, 177 Ariz. 201, 866 P.2d 869 (1994).

¶ 5 Evans, like Torrez, was stopped for a traffic violation and arrested based on a computerized records check that showed he had an outstanding warrant. A police officer found a bag of marijuana in Evans's car after the arrest, and he was charged with unlawful possession of marijuana. Evans moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that his arrest was illegal because the justice of the peace who had issued the warrant had quashed it several weeks before the arrest. Although the trial court could not determine whether justice court staff or law enforcement employees had failed to remove the warrant from the computer database, the court apparently concluded it did not matter, applied the exclusionary rule, and granted the motion.

¶ 6 A divided court of appeals reversed the ruling in State v. Evans (Evans I), 172 Ariz. 314, 836 P.2d 1024 (App.1992). The court found that, because the evidence indicated court staff had failed to inform law enforcement personnel that the warrant had been quashed, the trial court had misapplied the exclusionary rule. That rule, said the court, "is intended to deter police misconduct and not to punish errors of judges and magistrates." Id. at 317, 836 P.2d at 1027.

¶ 7 On review, our supreme court affirmed the trial court's application of the exclusionary rule. The supreme court determined that "no warrant" existed at the time Evans was arrested and, thus, his "warrantless arrest" was "plainly illegal" because it had been "based entirely ... on an erroneous computer entry." Evans (Evans II), 177 Ariz. at 203, 866 P.2d at 871. The court also declined to apply the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule enunciated in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3430, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984). The court stated that, "even assuming ... that responsibility for the error rested with the justice court," Evans II, 177 Ariz. at 203, 866 P.2d at 871, application of the exclusionary rule would "serve to improve the efficiency of those who keep records in our criminal justice system." Id. at 204, 866 P.2d at 872. ¶ 8 Despite the factual similarities of Evans II and this case, we find Torrez's reliance on Evans II misplaced. First, as already noted, Evans II is a criminal case and dealt only with the application of the exclusionary rule. More importantly, the United States Supreme Court disagreed with our supreme court's application of the exclusionary rule in Evans II and reversed its decision in Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1, 115 S.Ct. 1185, 131 L.Ed.2d 34 (1995). The Supreme Court observed that, although the exclusionary rule generally deters future Fourth Amendment violations, the Court's prior decisions in Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340, 107 S.Ct. 1160, 94 L.Ed.2d 364 (1987); Massachusetts v. Sheppard, 468 U.S. 981, 104 S.Ct. 3424, 82 L.Ed.2d 737 (1984); and Leon established a good-faith exception to the rule and limited its application "to those instances where its remedial objectives are thought most efficaciously served." Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. at 11, 115 S.Ct. at 1191, 131 L.Ed.2d at 44. Those instances, said the Court, do not include warrants issued as a result of judicial errors or mistakes because the rule's application under those circumstances would not have "a significant deterrent effect on the issuing judge or magistrate." Id. The Court thus held that, "[i]f court employees were responsible for the erroneous computer record," as our supreme court had assumed, "the exclusion of evidence at trial would not sufficiently deter future errors [by court employees] so as to warrant such a severe sanction." Id. at 14, 115 S.Ct. at 1193, 131 L.Ed.2d at 46. The Court concluded that Leon and its progeny established a categorical, good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule "for clerical errors of court employees." Id. at 16, 115 S.Ct. at 1194, 131 L.Ed.2d at 47.

¶ 9 Torrez nonetheless argues that an officer's good-faith belief in the propriety of an arrest is no defense to the tort of false arrest or false imprisonment, citing our supreme court's early decision of Adair v. Williams, 24 Ariz. 422, 210 P. 853 (1922). There, police officers had entered the Adairs' home without a warrant and then arrested them for allegedly committing the misdemeanor offense of unlawful cohabitation in the officers' presence. The Adairs filed a claim for false imprisonment and, following a trial, appealed from an adverse jury verdict. The supreme court reversed, based on an erroneous jury instruction.

¶ 10 The court determined that the officers' warrantless entry into the home was unlawful and, therefore, that their subsequent warrantless arrest of the Adairs was likewise unlawful. "[An] officer is not justified either in making [a warrantless] entry into [a house] for the mere purpose of placing himself in a position where he may observe the commission of a misdemeanor or in thereupon making an arrest therefor." Id. at 432, 210 P. at 856. The court thus held that the officers could not defend against the false imprisonment claim, as the trial court had instructed the jury, on the ground that the officers had arrested the Adairs without a warrant "upon a [good-faith] belief in [their] guilt." Id. at 436, 210 P. at 857.

¶ 11 The supreme court's holding follows the general rule that, if a person commits an intentional tort, "such as trespass to land, battery, or false imprisonment, it will be no excuse ... that [the person] was mistaken as to something justifying...