Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Thompson v. Smith
Citations: 345 S.E.2d 500; 289 S.C. 334; 1986 S.C. App. LEXIS 377Docket: 0668
Court: Court of Appeals of South Carolina; March 31, 1986; South Carolina; State Appellate Court
David B. Thompson sued Donald E. Smith, Jr., a Spartanburg City Policeman, for false arrest and imprisonment, resulting in a jury awarding Thompson $10,000. The incident occurred after Thompson, who had recently purchased a car, was stopped by Smith for driving with expired tags. Although Thompson presented documentation indicating he was in compliance, Smith expressed doubt and arrested him. After discovering that Thompson's license had not been revoked, police held him for an additional hour. On appeal, the main issue was the trial judge's failure to define "probable cause" when requested. The court noted that while it is generally accepted that an arrest can occur for a misdemeanor if the officer has probable cause, this standard requires more than mere suspicion. The judge's omission to clarify this definition constituted reversible error, as it was crucial for the jury to understand that probable cause involves a reasonable belief based on factual circumstances, rather than a mere hunch or unsupported belief. The court emphasized that the determination of probable cause should account for practical considerations that a reasonable person would recognize. The judgment is reversed due to the trial judge's jury instructions regarding probable cause. The judge indicated that if the jury found the plaintiff, Thompson, committed an offense in the officer's presence, that would be relevant to the officer's conduct. However, without a clear definition of "probable cause," this instruction may have misled the jury into focusing on Thompson's guilt rather than whether the officer had a legally sufficient basis for the arrest. Since the question for the jury was supposed to center on probable cause, the judge's misdirection constituted reversible error. The court emphasized that, upon retrial, the jury must be instructed that false arrest and imprisonment arise from the unlawful restraint of personal liberty. The essence of this tort is to safeguard individual freedom from movement restraint. Additionally, the jury must consider whether the officers acted reasonably in detaining Thompson for about an hour after learning that his license was valid. If the jury finds the police unreasonably delayed Thompson's release after confirming his innocence, probable cause would no longer be an issue, and he would be entitled to damages for false imprisonment during that time. All other exceptions raised in the appeal were dismissed as meritless. The order was reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial, with concurrence from Justices Sanders and Bell. Probable cause is noted as a mixed question of law and fact, but since Thompson did not request a directed verdict on liability, it remained a factual issue for the jury.