STEPHENS Et Al. v. ZIMMERMAN
333 Ga. App. 586
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- On June 25, 2011 multiple vehicles and a motorcycle were vandalized in a Savannah parking garage; three men (Martin, Botello, Stratton) later pled guilty. Four witnesses gave varying descriptions: some described two white men and a Hispanic man; at least one witness and one non-eyewitness mentioned a black male among four suspects.
- Officer Amir Delic conducted initial interviews and prepared a report; Detective trainee Samantha Stephens continued the investigation, interviewed suspects (including Zimmerman) and victims, and sought arrest warrants after consulting her supervisor.
- Suspects and witnesses gave inconsistent statements; Botello admitted destruction with “Josh” and “Seth,” and two other suspects referenced being with “Josh Zimmerman.” Zimmerman initially denied involvement and acquaintance with suspects, later made some equivocal statements; his alibi witness (roommate) was contacted only after his arrest.
- Zimmerman was arrested on warrants for false statements and criminal damage, jailed ~2 days, then the charges were dismissed after a preliminary hearing in Recorder’s Court.
- Zimmerman sued the City and Stephens for false imprisonment/false arrest/malicious prosecution and amended to add a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for arrest without probable cause. The trial court denied summary judgment as to immunities; the Court of Appeals reversed, granting summary judgment for City and Stephens.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether City/Stephens are immune from Zimmerman’s state-law malicious prosecution claim | Zimmerman: Stephens lacked probable cause, acted maliciously by ignoring/contradicting witness details and by testifying falsely | City/Stephens: Stephens had probable cause (or arguable probable cause) based on witness statements and suspect admissions; no actual malice shown | Reversed trial court: official/sovereign immunity applies; no evidence of actual malice to waive immunity; summary judgment for defendants |
| Whether probable cause existed for arrest (state tort context) | Zimmerman: inconsistent witness descriptions and failure to verify race/address/alibi show lack of probable cause | Defendants: combined information (eyewitness reports, suspect admissions mentioning “Josh”) supplied reasonably trustworthy facts to support probable cause | Court: Given information available, reasonable officers could have believed probable cause existed; no genuine issue of material fact for malicious prosecution element of lack of probable cause |
| Whether Stephens acted with actual malice (to defeat official immunity) | Zimmerman: investigative shortcuts, inconsistent reports, and post-arrest alibi contact show deliberate intent or malice | Stephens: investigative mistakes/omissions at most; no evidence of deliberate intent to harm Zimmerman | Court: Ill will/poor tactics insufficient; actual malice (deliberate intent to injure) not shown; official immunity stands |
| Whether § 1983 claim (Fourth Amendment) survives against Stephens/City | Zimmerman: constitutional violation for arrest without probable cause; failure to obtain easily discoverable exculpatory facts | Defendants: Officers had arguable probable cause; officers not required to perform error-free investigations; qualified immunity shields them | Court: Arguable probable cause existed; qualified immunity applies; § 1983 claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. Campbell, 320 Ga. App. 362 (Ga. Ct. App.) (summary judgment standard on appeal)
- Ferrell v. Mikula, 295 Ga. App. 326 (Ga. Ct. App.) (distinction between malicious arrest and malicious prosecution)
- Garner v. Heilig-Meyers Furniture Co., 240 Ga. App. 780 (Ga. Ct. App.) (remedy depends on whether prosecution followed arrest)
- Marshall v. Browning, 310 Ga. App. 64 (Ga. Ct. App.) (official immunity and actual malice standard)
- Bateast v. DeKalb County, 258 Ga. App. 131 (Ga. Ct. App.) (when officers knowingly arrest a person they know is innocent, no immunity)
- Pickens v. Hollowell, 59 F.3d 1203 (11th Cir.) (arguable probable cause / qualified immunity inquiry)
- Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (U.S. Sup. Ct.) (officer liable under § 1983 if affidavit so lacking that a reasonably well-trained officer would know it failed to establish probable cause)
- Kingsland v. City of Miami, 382 F.3d 1220 (11th Cir.) (officers may not ignore offered information, but are not required to perform error-free investigations)