Title: Cook v. Nelson

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Cook v. Nelson  (97-054); 167 Vt. 505; 712 A.2d 382

[Opinion Filed 13-Mar-1998]

[Motion for Reargument Denied 7-Arp-1998]

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.

                            No. 97-054

Craig Cook                                   Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal from
    v.                                       Addison Superior Court

Thomas Nelson, et al.                        October Term, 1997

Matthew I. Katz, J.

David F. Kelley, Orleans, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

William H. Sorrell, Attorney General, Timothy B. Tomasi, Assistant
  Attorney General, and Cindy Maguire, Special Assistant Attorney General,
  Montpelier, for Defendant-Appellee.

PRESENT: Dooley, Morse and Johnson.

       DOOLEY, J.   Plaintiff Craig Cook filed a malicious prosecution action
  against defendant state police officer Thomas Nelson, contending that
  defendant unjustifiably issued him a citation charging him with violating
  13 V.S.A. § 4003 (carrying a firearm into a state institution).  An Addison
  Superior Court jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and awarded
  him $10,000 in damages.  Finding that defendant was entitled to qualified
  immunity for the actions for which he was sued, the presiding judge set
  aside the verdict and granted defendant a judgment as a matter of law
  pursuant to V.R.C.P. 50(b).  Plaintiff appeals this decision claiming that
  (1) qualified immunity is inapplicable because of the jury verdict against
  defendant; (2) qualified immunity is inapplicable because plaintiff s right
  to be free from prosecution was clearly established; (3) qualified immunity
  should not be available as a post-judgment defense; and (4) even if
  qualified immunity can be used as a post-judgment defense, the defense was
  waived because defendant did not request that the jury be provided with
  instructions or special interrogatories on the defense.  In addition to
  defending the decision of the trial court, defendant

 

  argues that the tort of malicious prosecution does not apply because
  plaintiff was never prosecuted.  We affirm without reaching the additional
  ground raised by defendant.

       In January of 1993, plaintiff was involved in divorce and child
  custody proceedings with his estranged wife. Plaintiff believed that a
  Vermont State Police trooper in the Williston barracks had in his
  possession drug paraphernalia that had been confiscated from his wife
  during a police search of his home.  Plaintiff hoped to use this evidence
  in the child custody proceeding to demonstrate that his wife was unfit to
  have custody.  On January 17, 1993, plaintiff went to the Vermont State
  Police's Williston barracks to speak with the trooper about this evidence. 
  He was informed that the trooper was unavailable but would be returning
  sometime after 5:00 p.m.

       Plaintiff was a licensed armed security guard.  On January 17,
  plaintiff was carrying a .40 caliber semi-automatic pistol and was wearing
  a bullet-proof vest.  Two days earlier, after plaintiff attempted to enter
  the Chittenden Family Court while carrying his gun, the presiding judge of
  that court had notified the Williston state police barracks that plaintiff
  had a gun.

       When plaintiff returned to the Williston barracks on January 17,
  defendant met him and asked him whether he was carrying a gun.  When
  plaintiff answered that he was, defendant and two other state police
  officers placed him under arrest for violating 13 V.S.A. § 4003.  That
  statute provides:

     A person . . . who carries a dangerous or deadly weapon within
     any state institution . . . without the approval of the warden or
     superintendent of the institution, shall be imprisoned not more than
     two years or fined not more than $200.00, or both.

  After plaintiff was placed in custody, defendant issued him a citation to
  appear in court to answer to the charge of carrying a dangerous weapon into
  a state institution and released him.

       Defendant issued a press release stating that plaintiff was arrested
  and charged with carrying a deadly weapon within a state institution.  The
  story was covered by the Burlington newspaper and on the television news. 
  Shortly thereafter, plaintiff was fired from his job.

       Defendant sent the Chittenden County States Attorney a memorandum in
  support of the

 

  criminal charge against plaintiff.  In that memo, he stated that he had
  been part of the Vermont Governor s security detail and, as a result of an
  incident when a citizen brought a gun into the Governor s office, had
  identified 13 V.S.A. § 4003 as a statute that could be used in such a case. 
  He argued that the state police barracks was an  institution  under the
  statute.  He also argued that the State Buildings Department had the right
  to establish rules for the use of state buildings and had adopted a rule
  prohibiting the carrying of firearms on the property.  He argued that
  plaintiff should be prosecuted because he had a history of threatening
  police officers and others.  The states attorney decided not to prosecute.

       Plaintiff then brought suit in Addison Superior Court claiming (1) a
  violation of his federal civil rights actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
  (2) a violation of his rights under the Vermont Constitution, (3) assault
  and battery, (4) defamation, and (5) intentional infliction of emotional
  distress.  By later amendment, he added claims for (6) false arrest, (7)
  false imprisonment, and (8) malicious prosecution.  Defendant responded by
  raising various defenses, including the defense of absolute and qualified
  official immunity.  The court granted summary judgment to defendant on all
  counts except for assault and battery, false imprisonment and malicious
  prosecution.  After a three-day trial, the jury found for plaintiff on the
  malicious prosecution claim and awarded damages in the amount of $10,000. 
  Defendant moved for judgment as a matter of law at the close of plaintiff s
  case and after the verdict.  The court granted the post-verdict motion
  based on the defense of qualified immunity.

       In its decision, the trial court reasoned that defendant was protected
  by qualified official immunity if he acted in good faith.  The court
  applied the objective test of good faith set forth in Harlow v. Fitzgerald,