84 N.E.3d 1198
Ind. Ct. App.2017Background
- Donovan, an experienced "advantage player," received a July 19, 2011 eviction letter (mailed with a middle-initial typo) banning him from Hoosier Park until July 19, 2013 unless certain conditions were met; he received it July 21.
- Donovan returned to Hoosier Park multiple times; on August 5, 2011 he was identified via another patrons' Player’s Club card, security alerted Indiana Gaming Commission (IGC) agents, and casino security confronted him.
- An altercation occurred when IGC agents attempted to detain/arrest Donovan for trespass and disorderly conduct; he resisted and was subdued, handcuffed, and taken to the IGC office; criminal charges were later dismissed or diverted.
- Donovan sued Hoosier Park, IGC, and individual actors for false imprisonment, wrongful arrest, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and battery.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for all defendants; Donovan appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed—finding the eviction valid for private enforcement, IGC agents had probable cause for arrest, and the Indiana Tort Claims Act (ITCA) barred other tort claims against state actors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Donovan properly evicted so his later return was trespass? | Donovan argued mailing typo, lack of stated reason, and subsequent marketing mail created a factual dispute about validity of eviction. | Hoosier Park contended the eviction letter satisfied IGC eviction procedures and any regulatory defect is to be enforced by IGC, not via private suit. | Eviction was valid for purposes of this suit; Donovan was a trespasser as a matter of law. |
| Did IGC agents commit false arrest/false imprisonment? | Donovan argued agents lacked probable cause to arrest him. | IGC argued agents reasonably relied on casino security information that an evicted patron was on premises, providing probable cause. | Court held agents had probable cause; false arrest/imprisonment claims fail. |
| Are Donovan’s abuse of process and malicious prosecution claims against IGC barred by statutory immunity (ITCA)? | Donovan asserted tort claims based on arrest and prosecution. | IGC argued acts were within scope of employment and fall within ITCA immunity. | ITCA bars malicious prosecution and abuse of process claims against IGC agents acting in scope. |
| Are Hoosier Park and its employees liable (a) for proximately causing false arrest/imprisonment, (b) for abuse of process, (c) for malicious prosecution, and (d) for battery? | Donovan claimed Hoosier Park proximately caused arrest by alerting IGC; alleged improper motive and excessive force by security. | Hoosier Park argued they merely reported and assisted lawfully; any challenge to eviction regulation is to IGC; prosecutor, not Hoosier Park, instituted charges; force used was reasonable to effect arrest. | (a) No proximate liability—notification to police is not false arrest. (b) No abuse of process—actions were proper to remove an evicted trespasser. (c) No malicious prosecution—Hoosier Park did not institute prosecution. (d) No battery—surveillance shows reasonable force; summary judgment for Hoosier Park affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rogers v. Martin, 63 N.E.3d 316 (Ind. 2016) (summary-judgment standard and de novo review of legal questions)
- Stulajter v. Harrah’s Indiana Corp., 808 N.E.2d 746 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (IGC regulation enforcement must proceed through the Commission rather than private suit)
- Lyles v. State, 970 N.E.2d 140 (Ind. 2012) (defendant may be guilty of criminal trespass after being told to leave the premises)
- Miller v. City of Anderson, 777 N.E.2d 1100 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (probable cause known to officers defeats false arrest/imprisonment claim)
- Tallman v. State, 13 N.E.3d 854 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (ITCA immunity does not cover false arrest/imprisonment but covers other enforcement acts when within scope of employment)