78 So. 3d 660
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- Miami-Dade County and Sgt. Sedaño appeal a jury verdict for false arrest after earlier ruling left remaining claims.
- Plaintiffs—Asad, Garcia, and Rivera—were arrested for assault with a firearm and as principals to armed burglary with a battery; Rivera also for unlicensed bondsman conduct.
- The beating of Daniel Walker during an arrest raid by seven or eight bondsmen is the central incident; Walker was unarmed and not resisting.
- Pre-trial, summary judgment ruled in favor of the County on federal claims; malicious prosecution claims proceeded to trial.
- At trial, defendants moved for directed verdict on malicious prosecution; the jury awarded false arrest damages to plaintiffs.
- The court granted rehearing and reversed the prior opinion, remanding to reconsider false arrest viability in light of evidence admissibility and malice findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there malice evidence for malicious prosecution claims? | Plaintiffs contend malice existed against Sedaño. | No malice; State Attorney's charging decisions insulated Sedaño. | Yes, trial court erred; malice not proven; directed verdict for defendants. |
| Does prosecutorial charging discretion immunize Sedaño from malicious prosecution liability? | State Attorney’s charging decisions do not immunize Sedaño. | Prosecutor's decisions insulated Sedaño from liability as a matter of law. | Sedaño immune; evidence shows prosecutor controlled charging decisions. |
| Was the admission of evidence admissible for malicious prosecution prejudicial to false arrest claims? | Evidence relevant to malice should be admitted; related to false arrest too. | Much of the evidence was inadmissible for false arrest and prejudicial. | Prejudicial error; admission contaminated false arrest claim; requires new trial on false arrest. |
| Did the trial court properly limit consideration of post-arrest events in false arrest analysis? | Post-arrest events could be considered to prove malice. | False arrest hinges on probable cause at arrest time; post-arrest events are irrelevant. | Correct; post-arrest evidence improperly affected false arrest; remand to reassess with proper evidence. |
| Constitutional and evidentiary standards for probable cause at time of arrest | Probable cause should be analyzed with comprehensive evidence including identifications. | Probable cause evaluated as of time of arrest, not later developments. | Probable cause existed; not required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt; latitude for police investigation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mailly v. Jenne, 867 So.2d 1250 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (probable cause judged at time of arrest; hindsight not allowed)
- McCoy v. State, 565 So.2d 860 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (hindsight cannot remove probable cause qualification)
- Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 (U.S. 1969) (probable cause standard in arrest contexts)
- Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (U.S. 1975) (probable cause framework and standard for arrests)
- Austrino, 898 So.2d 962 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (probable cause sufficiency; on-point district court authority)
- City of Clearwater v. Williamson, 938 So.2d 985 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (reasonable investigation sufficient for probable cause; not all steps required)