In the Supreme Court State of Florida
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. ______________ DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS CASE NO. 2D02-5802 ________________________________________________________________ CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG, Petitioner, v. DONALD AUSTRINO and MARIA AUSTRINO, his wife Respondent. __________________________________________________________________ BRIEF OF PETITIONER ON JURISDICTION On Discretionary Review From a Decision of the Second District Court of Appeal JOHN C. WOLFE City Attorney ______________________________ By: DEBORAH GLOVER-PEARCEY Assistant City Attorney City of St. Petersburg P.O. Box 2842 St. Petersburg, FL 33731 (727) 893-7401/FBN: 796761 Counsel for Petitioner 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................................ i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES...................................................................................................i-ii STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS ....................................................................... 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT................................................................................................. 3 ARGUMENT............................................................................................................................... 4 THE SECOND DISTRICT'S APPLICATION OF A "REASONABLE INVESTIGATION" AND "NEGLIGENCE" ELEMENT TO LAW ENFORCEMENT'S DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE FOR A WARRANTLESS ARREST WHEN FALSE ARREST IS AN INTENTIONAL TORT, AND THAT ALLOWING THE POST-ARREST INVESTIGATION REPORT AND OPINION TESTIMONY ON PROBABLE CAUSE IS IN DIRECT AND EXPRESS CONFLICT WITH DECISIONS OF OTHER DISTRICT COURTS OF THIS STATE AND THE SUPREME COURT ON THE SAME QUESTION OF LAW CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................... 9 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE...............................................................................................10 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ...................................................................................10 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases: Page City of Miami v. Sanders, 672 So.2d 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) ..................................5 City of Orlando v. Ralph Kazarian, 481 So.2d 506 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) ..................6 City of St. Petersburg v. Reed, 330 So.2d 256 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976) .........................8 Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Indian River City, 371 So.2d 1010 (Fla. 1979).............4 Dickinson v. Gonzalez, 839 So.2d 709 (Fla. 3d DCA)............................................... Dodds v. State, 434 So.2d 940 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)...............................................7 Everton v. Willard, 468 So.2d 936 (Fla. 1985) .......................................................6 Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Comm'n Dockery, 676 So.2d 471 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).............................................................................................7 Kayfetz v. A. Best Roofing, Inc., 832 So.2d 784 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)......................8 i Lee v. Geiger, 419 So.2d 717 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).................................................6 Smith v. State, 363 So.2d 21 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) ..................................................6 State v. Smith, 450 S.2d 480 (Fla. 1984) ...............................................................6 Town of Palm Beach v. Palm Beach County, 460 So.2d 879, 882 (Fla. 1984) ..........................................................................................................8 Trianon Park Condo Association, Inc. v. City of Hileah, 468 So.2d 912 (Fla. 1985)................................................................................ 4, 5 Wong v. City of Miami, 237 So.2d 132 (Fla. 1970) ................................................6 Statutes: F.S. '901.15 (1998).............................................................................................8 Section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1997)..................................................................1 Other: Article V, ' 3(b)(3), Fla. Const..............................................................................1 Fla.R.App.P. 9.030(a)(2)(A)(iv)............................................................................1 ii STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS By this Petition and pursuant to Article V, ' 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. and Fla.R.App.P. 9.030(a)(2)(A)(iv), City of St. Petersburg ("CITY") seeks discretionary review on the Second District's decision, a copy of which is appended hereto at A-1 (Motion For Rehearing, En banc, and for Rehearing and Clarification denied April 20, 2005). Austrino was arrested for prescription fraud, a violation of Section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1997), by altering a prescription to obtain an unauthorized refill for vicodin, a controlled substance. A Walgreens pharmacist called the police to report the crime. The arrest was made without a warrant based on the officers determination of probable cause after interviewing the pharmacist at Walgreens, where the prescription had been presented, obtaining and reviewing the prescription, interviewing the suspect and contacting the pharmacist again. The charge was dismissed after it was later determined that the refill was valid. Austrino sued the City for false arrest and the City moved for Summary Judgment on probable cause, which was denied. At trial before the jury, the post-arrest internal investigation report and testimony of the internal investigation officer who prepared the report was admitted into evidence. That report indicated that the arresting officer did not have Aenough@ probable cause, it was incumbent upon the officer and pharmacist to contact the prescribing doctor, and the officer did not use proper investigative techniques in violation of a departmental rule. That same internal investigation Officer admitted at 1 trial that only the arresting officer can determine if probable cause existed at the time of arrest. The jury returned a verdict against the City in the amount of $45,000.00, finding the City ninety percent negligent.1 The City filed an appeal of the jury findings of liability for false arrest and damages alleging error in the Circuit Court's decision on probable cause, admission of evidence of post arrest matters and prejudicial opinion testimony on the issue of probable cause. The Second District, on February 9, 2005, affirmed on all points raised writing only to comment on the issue of probable cause and summary judgment. The majority Court opined that because the evidence in all inferences led inevitably to the conclusion that Austrino was arrested without a "reasonable investigation" it held that the facts and circumstances known to the officer were insufficient to give rise to probable cause.2 The Court recognized that a single credible victim or eye witness can provide the basis for probable cause, but because of the hearsay nature of the information provided by the pharmacist opined that it was incumbent upon the officer to further investigate whether there was probable cause to believe a crime had been committed. The dissent opined that the City was entitled to Summary Judgment on the issue of probable cause.3 1The co-defendant, Walgreen's settled before trial, but the jury found it ten percent negligent. 2See Opinion page 5, paragraph 2. The majority struggled with finding otherwise, because then the City was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law since there were no material facts in dispute, but found significance in an arrest that occurs at 5:00 a.m. 3The dissent opined that although Austrino was arrested based on information ultimately determined to be inaccurate, at the time of arrest the officer had an adequate basis for probable cause. 2 The majority affirmed the admissibility of the post-arrest internal affairs investigation report and opinion testimony on probable cause. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT Probable cause to make an arrest is an objective standard that is based on what an arresting officer reasonably believes at the time of arrest. The law of probable cause is clearly defined by statutory and case law. The determination is applied on a case by case basis and the type of crime committed has a direct bearing on the probable cause determination. The majority concluded that the officer was negligent by not conducting a reasonable investigation. The claim of false arrest is an intentional tort and not based on a negligence theory. To uphold the majority's analysis of applying a "reasonable investigation" element to probable cause is in direct and express conflict with statutory and case law and is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. The majority=s affirmance of the admission of a post-arrest investigative report and opinion testimony on probable cause is in direct and express conflict with opinions holding that subsequent information does not negate the probable cause that existed at the time of arrest. This court should accept jurisdiction. ARGUMENT THE SECOND DISTRICT'S APPLICATION OF A "REASONABLE INVESTIGATION" AND "NEGLIGENCE" ELEMENT TO LAW ENFORCEMENT'S DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE FOR A WARRANTLESS ARREST WHEN FALSE ARREST IS AN INTENTIONAL 3 TORT, AND THAT ALLOWING THE POST-ARREST INVESTIGATION REPORT AND OPINION TESTIMONY ON PROBABLE CAUSE IS IN DIRECT AND EXPRESS CONFLICT WITH DECISIONS OF OTHER DISTRICT COURTS OF THIS STATE AND THE SUPREME COURT ON THE SAME QUESTION OF LAW The case before this Court was brought as a false arrest case, but the majority effectively converts the