Lagroon v. Lawson
328 Ga. App. 614
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Lagroon and Barnett were present near a house party where underage drinking occurred; they were on adjacent property in a camper and were later identified by some teen witnesses as contributors of alcohol.
- Sheriff Lawson and Deputies Foskey and Hancock investigated; officers obtained witness statements (some later recanting or claiming coercion) and arrested Lagroon and Barnett on warrants for contributing to the delinquency of minors.
- Evidence showed officers pressured teenagers to sign statements implicating Lagroon, and some witnesses later said they were coerced; Kathy Rhodes (homeowner) repeatedly told officers Lagroon and Barnett were not involved.
- Deputy Hancock interviewed Barnett about her estranged husband, threatened to involve him, and delayed/withheld Kathy Rhodes’ exculpatory statement from the district attorney for nine months.
- A grand jury returned a special presentment; prosecution was later dismissed by nolle prosequi after the district attorney received the exculpatory statement.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for defendants on false arrest and false imprisonment claims and on malicious prosecution; the court of appeals affirmed on the arrest/imprisonment claims but reversed as to malicious prosecution, finding genuine fact issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Official immunity | Officers acted with malice/wilfulness in procuring false statements and concealing exculpatory evidence, so no immunity | Officers performed discretionary law‑enforcement acts and are entitled to official immunity absent willfulness or actual malice | Genuine issue of material fact exists as to actual malice; immunity is not resolved on summary judgment |
| Proper cause of action (false arrest/imprisonment vs. malicious prosecution) | Plaintiffs pleaded false arrest/imprisonment and malicious prosecution | Defendants argued arrest/warrant/prosecution controls which tort applies | Because arrests were by warrant and prosecution followed, malicious prosecution is the exclusive remedy; summary judgment for defendants on false arrest/imprisonment affirmed |
| Want of probable cause | Officers lacked probable cause: mere presence at party is not a crime and witness statements were coerced/known unreliable | Officers honestly and reasonably believed statements and other facts supported probable cause | Fact question exists: officers’ alleged knowledge of false/coerced statements and concealment rebuts prima facie probable cause from grand jury return |
| Malice (for malicious prosecution) | Malice can be inferred from reckless disregard, coercion of witnesses, dictating statements, and hiding exculpatory evidence | No malice; acts were investigative and discretionary | Evidence could support inference of malice; jury must decide |
Key Cases Cited
- McDowell v. Smith, 285 Ga. 592 (Ga. 2009) (defines official immunity and its malice/wilfulness exception)
- Garner v. Heilig-Meyers Furniture Co., 240 Ga. App. 780 (Ga. Ct. App.) (rule that when prosecution follows arrest by warrant, malicious prosecution is exclusive remedy)
- Willis v. Brassell, 220 Ga. App. 348 (Ga. Ct. App.) (elements of malicious prosecution and standards for malice and probable cause)
- Ferrell v. Mikula, 295 Ga. App. 326 (Ga. Ct. App.) (distinguishing false imprisonment, false arrest, and malicious prosecution)
- City of Atlanta v. Shavers, 326 Ga. App. 95 (Ga. Ct. App.) (malice may be inferred from evidence of deliberate wrongdoing by officers)