Broughton v. State, 37 N.Y.2d 451 (1975)

In actions for false imprisonment based on a warrantless arrest, the burden is on the defendant to prove legal justification for the arrest, and the ‘prima facie’ rule applicable in malicious prosecution cases (presuming probable cause after arraignment or indictment) does not apply.

Summary

These consolidated cases address whether the ‘prima facie’ rule, which presumes probable cause in malicious prosecution actions after arraignment or indictment, applies to false imprisonment claims. The Court of Appeals held that the rule is inapplicable to false imprisonment actions stemming from warrantless arrests. In such cases, the burden rests on the defendant to prove legal justification for the arrest. Damages for false imprisonment are limited to the period up to arraignment or indictment, excluding legal fees for subsequent defense unless malicious prosecution is proven. The court affirmed the order in Schanbarger and modified and remitted the Broughton case for recalculation of damages.

Facts

In Broughton, Susan Broughton was arrested during a search of a mobile home where police found marijuana. The search warrant was later deemed invalid, and the indictment against Broughton was dismissed due to lack of evidence.
In Schanbarger, Donald Schanbarger was arrested for loitering after refusing to identify himself to a state trooper. He was initially convicted, but the conviction was overturned on appeal because the trooper lacked reasonable suspicion.

Procedural History

Broughton: The Court of Claims awarded damages to Broughton for false imprisonment, including lost wages, mental anguish, and legal fees. The Appellate Division affirmed.
Schanbarger: The Supreme Court, Rensselaer County, granted judgment to Schanbarger for false arrest. The Appellate Division affirmed.
Both cases were appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether the prima facie rule, which presumes probable cause in malicious prosecution actions after arraignment or indictment, applies to actions for false imprisonment based on warrantless arrests.
Whether damages for false imprisonment can include legal fees incurred after the arraignment or indictment.

Holding

No, because the prima facie rule applies only to malicious prosecution actions, not false imprisonment actions based on warrantless arrests.
No, because damages for false imprisonment are limited to the period up to arraignment or indictment, and do not include legal fees for subsequent defense unless malicious prosecution is proven.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court distinguished between false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. False imprisonment protects freedom from unlawful restraint of movement, while malicious prosecution protects freedom from unjustifiable litigation.

To establish false imprisonment, a plaintiff must show intentional confinement, awareness of confinement, non-consent, and that the confinement was not privileged. Malice and lack of probable cause are not essential elements.

Malicious prosecution requires a prior judicial proceeding, termination in favor of the accused, absence of probable cause, and actual malice. The prima facie rule, which recognizes the validity of actions where there has been a judicial evaluation, applies only to malicious prosecution actions.

“Whenever there has been an arrest and imprisonment without a warrant, the officer has acted extrajudicially and the presumption arises that such an arrest and imprisonment are unlawful.” The burden is on the defendant to prove legal justification.

Damages for false imprisonment are measured only to the time of arraignment or indictment. “Those damages will not include attorney’s fees expended in the subsequent defense of the criminal prosecution…Such damages are properly attributable to the tort of malicious prosecution.”

In Broughton, the case was remitted to determine damages limited to the time of false imprisonment, not extending beyond arraignment. In Schanbarger, the award for mental anguish and humiliation was upheld because it related to the tort and did not extend beyond arraignment.