Ex parte Harris, 216 So. 3d 1201

Background

Geraldine Bryson operated “The Spot” with a business license that prohibited alcohol; she never obtained a liquor license.
A DJ rented the venue for May 2, 2010; flyers advertised a $7 “beer bash” that evening. Bryson denied distributing flyers and testified she did not observe drinking.
Mayor Hill received a citizen complaint, notified Police Chief Jimmy Harris, who obtained a flyer, drove by the premises, entered with other officers, observed people consuming alcohol, seized 200+ beers, and Bryson was arrested for selling alcohol without a license; charges were later dismissed.
Bryson sued Harris (individually) and the Town for malicious prosecution, false arrest/imprisonment, harassment, IIED, libel, and slander, alleging Harris acted willfully and within the scope of employment.
The trial court struck an ABC agent affidavit and denied defendants’ summary-judgment motion; the Town and Harris sought mandamus review from the Alabama Supreme Court.
The Alabama Supreme Court (Bolin, J.) granted mandamus: it ordered the trial court to enter summary judgment for Harris on false-arrest, false-imprisonment, and malicious-prosecution claims; it denied mandamus as to non-immunity grounds and directed summary judgment for the Town on all claims under municipal-immunity statute.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Harris is immune for false-arrest/false-imprisonment under § 6-5-338(a)/Cranman-Hollis framework	Bryson: Harris lacked authority to arrest for a misdemeanor not witnessed by him and acted with malice, so no immunity	Harris: He was performing discretionary law-enforcement duties and had (at least) arguable probable cause to arrest	Held: Harris was performing a discretionary law-enforcement function; he had arguable probable cause (saw alcohol, flyer advertised paid beer event, 200+ beers seized) and is immune on false-arrest/false-imprisonment claims
Whether Harris is immune for malicious prosecution	Bryson: Harris initiated prosecution maliciously and for personal reasons; evidence of animus and competing interests defeats immunity	Harris: He had probable cause to initiate the proceeding and acted without malice	Held: Probable cause existed when prosecution was initiated; no sufficient evidence of malice to defeat Cranman immunity; summary judgment for Harris on malicious-prosecution claim
Whether Town is vicariously liable for Harris’s intentional torts	Bryson: Town is liable because Harris acted within scope of employment and intentionally to harm her	Town: § 11‑47‑190 shields municipalities from liability for employees’ intentional/wanton acts; Town also benefits from § 6‑5‑338(b) when employee immune	Held: Town immune under § 11‑47‑190 from intentional torts; also immune where employee-state-agent immunity applies; summary judgment for Town on all claims
Whether the trial court properly relied on a stricken affidavit and whether mandamus review may consider it	Bryson: Defendants’ mandamus briefs rely on stricken ABC agent affidavit; briefs should be stricken and petitions denied	Defendants: Other evidence exists; affidavit produced earlier; mandamus court may consider the record before trial court	Held: Trial court did not abuse discretion in striking the affidavit; Alabama Supreme Court disregarded that affidavit but found sufficient other record evidence to grant mandamus and directed summary judgments; motions to strike briefs denied because other evidence sufficed

Key Cases Cited

Ex parte Cranman, 792 So.2d 392 (Ala. 2000) (establishes State-agent immunity test for personal-capacity suits)
Ex parte Butts, 775 So.2d 173 (Ala. 2000) (adopts/relies on Cranman principles)
Hollis v. City of Brighton, 950 So.2d 300 (Ala. 2006) (expands Cranman category concerning law-enforcement discretionary arrests and § 6-5-338 coverage)
Telfare v. City of Huntsville, 841 So.2d 1222 (Ala. 2002) (officer not immune where arrest for misdemeanors not committed in officer’s presence)
Borders v. City of Huntsville, 875 So.2d 1168 (Ala. 2003) (arguable probable cause standard applied to officer immunity)
Ex parte Tuskegee, 932 So.2d 895 (Ala. 2005) (municipal immunity and interaction with State-agent immunity)
Moon v. Pillion, 2 So.3d 842 (Ala. 2008) (malicious-prosecution elements and standards)