Horton v. Portsmouth Police Department, 22 A.3d 1115

Horton filed a 13-count amended complaint in Rhode Island Superior Court against the Portsmouth Police Department, ten officers, and other officials related to arrests and civil rights claims arising from multiple incidents between 2004 and 2006.
Arrests occurred on July 24, 2004; January 23, 2006; February 6, 2006; February 9, 2006; and July 17, 2006, each based on complaints from Ms. Horton and warrants issued by neutral magistrates.
Ms. Horton obtained temporary and ongoing protection from abuse orders; Horton faced incarceration from February 9–14, 2006 under a Rule 46(g) revocation process.
Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing probable cause existed for each arrest and that claims under the Rhode Island Civil Rights Act and other counts failed; other counts involved access to records and destruction/retention of records.
The district court motion justice granted summary judgment on all counts, thereafter affirmed by the Rhode Island Supreme Court after de novo review, holding probable cause existed for each arrest, and dismissing remaining claims as waived or insufficient.
Horton timely appealed, and the Supreme Court decided the appeal without further briefing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether probable cause to arrest/prosecute is a question of law for summary judgment.	Horton contends probable cause is a jury issue.	Defendants assert probable cause can be decided as a matter of law when supported by affidavits and warrants.	Probable cause may be decided as a matter of law; affirmed de novo.
Whether defendants had probable cause for counts 1–4, 6, and 8.	Prosecutions lacked probable cause in each arrest.	Arrests were supported by trustworthy reports and observations; warrants issued by neutral magistrates.	Probable cause existed for each arrest; counts 1–4, 6, and 8 affirmed.
Whether the denied access to public records and civil-rights claims fail for lack of probable cause or statutory exemption.	Requests for records and civil-rights claims should survive if not exempt or if probable cause is lacking.	Records were exempt; civil-rights claims depend on lack of probable cause.	Counts on access to records and civil-rights claims were subsumed by probable-cause ruling and waived; upheld dismissal.
Whether § 12-1-12 provides a private right of action for failure to destroy records of identification.	§ 12-1-12 supports a private remedy for improper destruction/retention.	§ 12-1-12 does not create a civil remedy.	Counts 12 and 13 dismissed; no private remedy under § 12-1-12.

Henshaw v. Doherty, 881 A.2d 909 (R.I. 2005) (probable cause as defense to false arrest; warrant presumption from neutral magistrate)
Beaudoin v. Levesque, 697 A.2d 1065 (R.I. 1997) (probable cause, when present, defeats malicious-prosecution and false-arrest claims)
Hill v. Rhode Island State Employees’ Retirement Board, 935 A.2d 608 (R.I. 2007) (probable cause as essential element; limits on malice proof)
State v. Girard, 799 A.2d 238 (R.I. 2002) (probable cause under totality-of-the-circumstances; trustworthiness of information)