Johnson v. HeinrichJohnson v. Heinrich
Rоbert Johnson appeals the trial court’s final order of summary judgment in favor of Walter Heinrich, Sheriff of Hillsborough County, and Heinrich’s deputy sheriff, K.S.
Johnson’s complaint consisted of five сounts. Count I was against Heinrich for unlawful arrest based on section 941.14, Florida Statutes (1987) and the Florida and federal constitutions. Count II was a claim against Heinrich for false arrest and false imprisonment. In count III Johnson claimed negligence by Heinrich in the hiring, training, and supervision of Nykanen and other unknown deputy sheriffs, which resulted in depriving Johnson of his constitutionally guaranteed rights. The last two counts contained allegations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1976) to the effect that Johnson’s constitutional rights and privileges and immunities guаranteed by the federal constitution had been violated by Nykanen (count IV) and Heinrich (count V).
The appellees filed separate motions for summary judgment directed solely at Johnson’s allegation of false arrest under Count II and the existеnce of probable cause to defeat that claim. The trial court entered final summary judgment, finding that there was prоbable cause for the arrest. We agree with that finding but disagree with the entry of summary judgment on all counts, since we concludе that there is at least one material issue of fact in dispute which remains to be decided.
This lawsuit stems from an incident which occurred on February 7, 1985, when Nykanen stopped Johnson for failure to obey a stop sign. Nykanen asked Johnson for a driver’s license, which Johnson failed to produce. Johnson told Nykanen that he had a valid driver’s license but had left it at home. Johnson identified himself to the officer as Robert George Johnson, bom on June 19, 1963, and that his social security number was 380-74-5500. Nykanen ran a check on Johnson in the National Crime Information Center (NCIC)/Florida Crime Information Center (FCIC) computer by entering Johnson’s name and the other personal data which he had provided. No valid Florida driver’s license was found, but Nykanen receivеd two criminal history “hits” from the NCIC computer. The “hits” indicated that there were two outstanding warrants from Ohio for a Robert F. Johnson, who used an alias of Robert G. Johnson, III, with the same social security number and date of birth as that of appellant Johnson.
Nykаnen arrested Johnson on the outstanding Ohio warrants and issued Johnson a citation on the no valid driver’s license charge.
On February 8, 1985, at approximately 10:43 a.m., Ohio dispatched a message to the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Department indicating that Hillsborough County should remove the hold on Johnson and releаse him due to the fact that the Ohio authorities could not make a positive identification. Shortly thereafter, the hold from Ohio was withdrawn by the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office. Johnson was apparently released on February 10, 1985, three days following his initial detention and over a day and a half after the trans
Based upon the above undisputed evidence which was available to Nykanen at the time of Johnson’s arrеst, we conclude that the trial court was correct in finding as a matter of law that Nykanen had probable cause tо arrest Johnson on the outstanding capiases, so as to preclude a claim for false arrest. See Lee v. Geiger,
For the stated reasons, we affirm the granting of summary judgment for appel-lees as to that portion of count II of the complaint which pertains to Johnson’s claim for false arrest. In all other respects, we revеrse the final judgment because there is a genuine issue of fact remaining to be resolved in the case regarding the reаsonableness of the detention, which may have an effect upon the other counts of the complaint so as tо prevent the entry of summary judgment. We direct the trial court on remand to act in accordance with this decision.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part with directions.
Notes
. The еvidence in the record is in conflict as to the order of the arrest on the Ohio warrants and the issuance of the driver's license citation; however, that conflict does not affect our ability ió find probable cause for Nykanen’s arrest оn the capiases based upon the remaining uncontested evidence.
. Although Heinrich and Nykanen in their motions for summary judgmеnt allege Johnson was released from jail on the date the Ohio hold was lifted, there are no attached affidavits or other sworn testimony to support that statement.