251 N.C. App. 161
N.C. Ct. App.2016Background
- On June 28, 2009, Roddie Lopp failed to turn over his children per a custody order; the children’s mother Jodie brought the order to the Louisburg Police and officers went with her to Roddie’s residence, joined by Deputy Joel Anderson of the Franklin County Sheriff’s Office.
- Plaintiffs are Roddie and his father Frederick Lopp; Plaintiffs allege the four officers on the scene (Anderson, Garrett Stanly/Stanly, Andy Castaneda, and Sherri/ Shari Brinkley) used excessive force, beating and handcuffing both Roddie and Frederick and deploying a stun gun on Roddie.
- Plaintiffs sued for assault and battery, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution against the officers (individual and official capacities) and against Franklin County, Town of Louisburg, and Louisburg Police Department.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment asserting sovereign/governmental immunity for municipal/official-capacity defendants and public-officer (qualified) immunity for officers in their individual capacities.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to all defendants; Plaintiffs appealed.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed sovereign-immunity holdings (Plaintiffs abandoned arguments about policy language waiving immunity and county liability for sheriff’s acts), reversed as to some individual-capacity claims, and remanded limited claims for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether municipal defendants and officials in their official capacities are protected by sovereign/governmental immunity | Insurance purchased by Franklin County and Town of Louisburg waived sovereign immunity (argument raised but unsupported on appeal) | Municipalities and officials retain sovereign immunity because the relevant insurance did not waive it and a county is not liable for an elected sheriff’s acts | Affirmed — plaintiffs abandoned the argument by failing to brief authorities and policy provisions; summary judgment for municipal defendants and officials in official capacities upheld |
| Whether officers in their individual capacities are entitled to public-officer immunity | Officers acted maliciously/wantonly (excessive force, beating handcuffed plaintiffs, unjustified stun-gun use) so immunity does not apply | Officers were performing discretionary law-enforcement duties without malice or corruption and had probable cause — thus public-officer immunity applies | Reversed in part — material factual disputes about malice and excessive force precluded summary judgment for officers on Roddie’s claims and for Anderson and Stanly on Frederick’s claims; summary judgment affirmed for Brinkley and Castaneda on Frederick’s claims (insufficient evidence implicating them in Frederick’s mistreatment) |
| Whether there is sufficient evidence to support assault and battery and false imprisonment claims against officers | Plaintiffs forecast evidence that officers used unnecessary/excessive force and made warrantless arrests without probable cause | Defendants offered contrary witness affidavits and argued arrests were lawful and force reasonable | Reversed as to assault/battery and false imprisonment for Roddie (all officers) and for Frederick as to Anderson and Stanly — factual disputes about force and probable cause require jury resolution |
| Whether malicious prosecution claims survive summary judgment | Plaintiffs contend officers instituted prosecution without probable cause and with malice; criminal charges were later dismissed | Defendants assert probable cause and lack of malice | Reversed as to malicious prosecution because prosecutors dropped charges (favorable termination) and disputed facts exist about probable cause and malice; triable issues remain regarding officers’ participation and motivations |
Key Cases Cited
- Bryson v. Coastal Plain League, 221 N.C. App. 654 (discusses de novo review on appeal from summary judgment)
- Smith v. Harris, 181 N.C. App. 585 (standard for viewing summary-judgment evidence in favor of nonmoving party)
- Showalter v. N.C. Dep’t of Crime Control & Pub. Safety, 183 N.C. App. 132 (public-officer immunity defeated where facts permit finding of malice/excessive force)
- Campbell v. Anderson, 156 N.C. App. 371 (police officers are public officials entitled to immunity from discretionary acts absent corruption or malice)
- Myrick v. Cooley, 91 N.C. App. 209 (assault/battery standards and excessive-force principles in arrests)
- Marlowe v. Piner, 119 N.C. App. 125 (probable cause is a mixed question of fact and law; disputed facts for jury)
- Moore v. Evans, 124 N.C. App. 35 (elements of malicious prosecution and probable-cause test)
- Thompson v. Town of Dallas, 142 N.C. App. 651 (denial of summary judgment where plaintiff forecast unnecessary rough treatment)