Frank v. City of Ville Platte

Citations: 715 So. 2d 530; 98 La.App. 3 Cir. 0155; 1998 La. App. LEXIS 1503; 1998 WL 283041Docket: No. 98-155

Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; June 3, 1998; Louisiana; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Jerbert Frank filed a lawsuit for personal injury damages due to a battery he allegedly suffered while in police custody. The incident occurred on October 8, 1996, when Frank was seated in a police car for a field identification after being stopped by Officer Pat Foret, who believed Frank matched the description of a burglar. While in the back of the police unit, Mr. Doyle, the victim of the alleged burglary, identified Frank as the perpetrator. During this identification, Mr. McCauley, another individual involved, grabbed Frank, leading to a physical altercation in which Frank claimed he was struck and injured. Frank was subsequently arrested for burglary and theft, while McCauley was arrested for battery and interfering with an officer's duties. Frank, who was on parole at the time, pleaded guilty to avoid harsher penalties. He filed a suit against the City of Ville Platte for damages related to the battery and alleged false imprisonment, but the trial court dismissed his claim, finding no liability on the city's part. Frank is now appealing this dismissal. The legal standard indicates that police officers have a duty to protect prisoners from harm, which forms the basis of Frank's argument for liability.

Police officers are only liable for certain risks to prisoners, as established in Langford v. City of Leesville, where a plaintiff sued for his son's wrongful death after the son, who had helped police recover stolen goods, shot himself after fleeing into his home. The court found no liability since there was no evidence of the son's suicidal tendencies, indicating that the risk of self-harm was not within the officers' duty of care.

In Garrison v. City of Berwick, a plaintiff sought damages after her brother-in-law struck her while both were being transported in a police car post-arrest. The plaintiff and her brother-in-law, involved in a prior altercation, were handled differently due to the brother-in-law's cooperative demeanor amidst a hostile crowd. The jury found no liability for the city or officers, affirming that their actions were reasonable, including the decision to transport the arrestees without handcuffing the brother-in-law initially. When the altercation occurred in the backseat, the officers acted promptly to separate them. 

In the current case, Officer Foret transported Mr. Frank for a field identification, with conflicting testimony regarding the police car door's status before an alleged battery occurred. The battery was committed by the crime victim, unbeknownst to Officer Foret, who had no prior indication that harm was intended towards Mr. Frank by Mr. McCauley.

Simple burglary and theft of a booksack were determined not to be crimes of violence, as they involved only property and did not result in damage or permanent loss to Mr. McCauley. Officer Foret's testimony indicated no prior reports of violence by Mr. McCauley at Mr. Doyle's residence, making it unreasonable for Foret to foresee an act of battery by McCauley against Mr. Frank. The minor nature of the crime, the prompt identification of the suspect, and the absence of indications of potential harm supported the conclusion that Officer Foret acted reasonably, leading to the affirmation of no liability for the City.

Regarding Mr. Frank's detention, a letter dated October 9, 1996, authorized the police to hold him as a parole violator after his arrest on October 8, 1996. Mr. Frank had the option to defer his seventy-two-hour hearing, which he chose, with the hearing eventually held on October 23, 1996. Louisiana law mandates that an arrested person must be brought before a judge within seventy-two hours for counsel appointment. Failure to do so results in the right to immediate release and potential civil damages for unlawful detention. Case law illustrates that a person detained beyond seventy-two hours is entitled to claim damages regardless of the legality of the initial arrest.

The Third Circuit determined that the plaintiff, Mr. Frank, was entitled to a hearing within seventy-two hours despite awaiting extradition, affirming the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of him for illegal detention exceeding that timeframe. The court awarded Mr. Frank $2,000 in damages, which included special damages. The City had custody of Mr. Frank and failed to present him before a judge within the required period, even though he had agreed to defer the hearing on October 18, 1996. Chief Robert Landreneau acknowledged that his department delayed the hearing for about fifteen days due to Mr. Frank's probation hold, attributing the responsibility to the probation authorities. However, Louisiana law mandates that the officer in custody must bring the arrestee for a hearing within seventy-two hours. Citing precedent, the Third Circuit found the City liable for failing to comply with this requirement. The trial court's dismissal of Mr. Frank’s claim was reversed, and he was awarded $2,500 in general damages for the illegal detention. The court affirmed all other aspects of the trial court’s decision, assessed the costs of the appeal to the City, and noted that Mr. Frank dismissed his claim against Mr. McCauley by joint motion.