Ojo v. Lorenzo
64 A.3d 974
N.H.2013Background
- On May 9, 2010, Officer Lorenzo stopped Ojo, patted him down, and arrested him after being told a kidnapping victim had identified him from a photo lineup.
- Ojo was charged in district court with kidnapping, falsifying physical evidence, and simple assault; a probable cause hearing occurred May 24, with bindover to superior court.
- Indictments were later returned by a Hillsborough Grand Jury; the State nol pros’d all charges in October 2011 after the alleged victim allegedly moved to Germany.
- In April 2012, Ojo, unrepresented, sued the Manchester Police Department and Lorenzo alleging false imprisonment, unlawful punishment, and misidentification grounds.
- The complaint argued defendants lacked probable cause and sought to hold them liable, despite district court and grand jury findings to the contrary; immunity defenses were raised.
- The superior court dismissed the case as to immunity and lack of probable cause; the court’s order was appealed, leading to part affirmation, part reversal, and remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether indictments grant immunity defenses | Ojo argues indictments negate immunity defenses. | Lorenzo/MPD contend indictments support immunity under RSA 507:8-d or official immunity. | Indictments do not establish immunity under either theory. |
| Whether probable cause at arrest is established | Ojo asserts lack of probable cause for arrest remains from pleadings. | Defendants contend probable cause existed based on investigations and lineup identification. | Probable cause to arrest not established by pleadings; grand jury indictment does not retroactively prove arrest probable cause. |
| Whether collateral estoppel applies to probable cause findings | Ojo claims district court’s probable cause finding forecloses later claims. | Defendants assert district court findings bar civil claims via collateral estoppel. | Collateral estoppel does not apply; arrest probable cause differs from bind-over probable cause. |
| Whether false imprisonment requires lack of probable cause | Ojo seeks recovery for false imprisonment despite probable cause arguments. | Defendants argue lack of probable cause is an element of false imprisonment. | Lack of probable cause is not an element of false imprisonment; however, facts do not show probable cause for arrest. |
| Whether the malicious prosecution claim survives | Ojo asserts malicious prosecution based on improper charges. | Indictment defeat requires showing improper procurement; writ does not allege impropriety. | Malicious prosecution claim is dismissed for lack of demonstrated impropriety in procuring the indictment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Morrissey v. Town of Lyme, 162 N.H. 777 (2011) (threshold inquiry on pleadings and applicable law)
- Beane v. Dana S. Beane & Co., 160 N.H. 708 (2010) (document admissibility in motion to dismiss)
- Hartgers v. Town of Plaistow, 141 N.H. 253 (1996) (definition of probable cause for arrest)
- Everitt v. General Electric Co., 156 N.H. 202 (2007) (official immunity framework for police)
- State v. St. Arnault, 114 N.H. 216 (1974) (probable cause to bind over differs from arrest probable cause)
- Moody v. Cunningham, 127 N.H. 550 (1986) (probable cause related to indictments and immunity discussion)