Title: Heining v. Abernathy
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1180273
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: August 16, 2019

Rel: August 16, 2019
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance
sheets of Southern Reporter.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-
0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before
the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
SPECIAL TERM, 2019
____________________
1180273
____________________
Ronald Heining and Tyler Heining
v.
Darryl Abernathy and Robert J. Dean, Jr.
Appeal from Calhoun Circuit Court
(CV-17-900555)
SELLERS, Justice.
Ronald Heining and his son, Tyler Heining, appeal from a
summary judgment entered by the Calhoun Circuit Court in favor
of Robert J. Dean, Jr., Public Works Director of the City of
1180273
Anniston, and Darryl Abernathy, a supervisor in the Public
Works Department, in the Heinings' action seeking damages for
false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and
conspiracy.  We affirm. 
Facts and Procedural History
The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the
Heining as the nonmovants for a summary judgment, reveals the
following relevant facts: In June or July 2012, Ronald Heining
discovered a sealed envelope that had been slipped underneath
the door at his place of employment, B&T Supplies, which was
owned by Ronald's son Tyler; B&T at the time sold janitorial
supplies to the City of Anniston ("the City").  Ronald was the
contact person for those sales. The envelope stated on the
outside "Deliver Ben Little" and contained two or three pages
of 
ethical 
violations 
allegedly committed 
by 
several 
employees
of the Public Works Department, including Dean and Abernathy. 
Little was a councilman for the City.  After reviewing the
contents of the envelope, Ronald took the envelope and its
contents to Councilman Little, who he claimed he did not know. 
Ronald and Councilman Little, in turn, took the information to
Don Hoyt, the city manager, who conducted an extensive
2
1180273
investigation into the alleged ethical violations.1    
Meanwhile, Councilman Little 
presented the 
allegations of
ethical violations at a city-council meeting.  Ronald Heining
was present at that council meeting, during which he sat next
to James Fluker, an employee in the Public Works Department.
At that meeting, Fluker confided in Ronald that he had put
"coolant seal" belonging to the City on the truck Abernathy
used for his personal business. After the council meeting
concluded, Ronald introduced Fluker to Councilman Little as
"the guy that put coolant seal" on Abernathy's truck. 
Apparently, at that time, Councilman Little ordered Fluker to
obtain from Abernathy's office a copy of a surveillance video
allegedly depicting the theft of two city-owned utility
trailers. Fluker informed Abernathy of Councilman Little's
instructions; because Abernathy thought that stealing a
surveillance video would violate the City's council-manager
act and would also constitute theft, this information was
provided 
to 
the 
Anniston 
Police 
Department 
and 
was
1Although Hoyt concluded that the specific ethical
violations against Dean and Abernathy were unfounded, both
Dean and Abernathy ultimately admitted to committing minor
violations of the State's ethics laws and were required to pay
an administrative penalty and/or a fine. 
3
1180273
investigated by Lt. Allen George, an investigator with the
department.  Lt. George monitored a telephone call from Fluker
to Councilman Little, which confirmed Councilman Little's
instruction to Fluker to obtain the surveillance video.
Subsequently, Councilman Little was arrested and was charged
with violating the City's council-manager act; Fluker was a
witness in that case. 
Sometime after Councilman Little's arrest, Fluker told
Abernathy that Ronald Heining had tried to bribe him not to
testify against Councilman Little. Abernathy telephoned Lt.
George and reported that conversation. The next day, Abernathy
accompanied Fluker to the police department to report the
bribery and witness-intimidation allegations. 
On August 24, 2012, the Heinings were arrested for
attempting to bribe and intimidate Fluker. The details of the
alleged bribery and intimidation are set forth in the Alabama
Uniform Incident/Offense Report, prepared by Lt. George and
dated August 23, 2012:
"Fluker ... is a witness in a case against
Councilman Benjamin Little .... For the last several
weeks, he has received threats by phone ... and was
followed for an extended period of time on August
14, 2012 by Ronald Heining.  Fluker feels that all
4
1180273
of these actions are because of him coming forward
against Councilman Little.
"On August 18, 2012, at approximately 7pm, Fluker
and his wife Amy Fluker drove to Scott's Grocery ...
to purchase fuel.  While they were at the fuel pumps
... Ronald Heining and a [white male] Fluker
believed to be [Ronald] Heining's son pulled up in
a small black SUV (4 Door).  Fluker said that the
[white male] with Ronald Heining stated 'I have
$1,000 cash if you don't go to trial with Ben Little
and keep your mouth shut.'  Fluker said that the
[white male] held up what appeared to be a roll of
$100 bills.  Fluker said to his wife 'something is
fishy about this, this is a set up.'  He said that
Ronald Heining kept saying 'Take the money; you know
you need the money, just take it.'  Fluker said that
Ronald told him, 'I will be at Ben Little's trial
and will be on his side and testify about all of
this crap.'  He said that Ronald Heining then got
into his vehicle and left the parking lot at a high
rate of speed like he was mad.
"On August 23, 2012, I met with Mr. Fluker and
showed him six separate photos in a stapled packet
that contained a photo of Tyler Heining and five
other similar white males.  Mr. Fluker identified
photo number four as being the individual that
offered him the money to not testify.  Photo number
four is a photo of Tyler Heining. ...
"At approximately 4pm, I met with Amy Fluker and
asked her what she had observed.  She stated that
she and [Mr. Fluker] were at the fuel pumps at
Scott's grocery when a small black SUV pulled up
beside them.  She said that the driver exited the
vehicle and she saw the passenger holding up a roll
of money.  She said that she heard the driver who
she believed was Ronald Heining, offering [Mr.
Fluker] money.  She said that she asked [Mr. Fluker]
why he was offering him money and when he told her,
she said that she told [Mr. Fluker] 'you better not
5
1180273
take that money.' [Mrs. Fluker] said that after a
few minutes, the vehicle sped away.  Mrs. Fluker
stated that at some point, the vehicle ended up
behind them and began following them for a short
distance before turning off.  I asked Mrs. Fluker if
she ever saw the individual holding up the money and
she said that she couldn't see them real well.  I
showed Mrs. Fluker a photo packet containing the
same photos that I showed Mr. Fluker, but in a
different order.  Mrs. Fluker was unable to identify
the suspect from the array, saying that she didn't
get a good enough look to be able to identify them.
"Mr. Fluker will come to [the Anniston Police
Department] on August 24, 2012, to be escorted to
the District Attorney's office to seek warrants." 
The bribery and witness-intimidation charges against the
Heinings were ultimately nolle prossed.2  The Heinings,
thereafter, sued Dean and 
Abernathy, asserting claims of false
arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and
conspiracy.3 The complaint essentially alleges that Dean and
Abernathy "fabricated a story for Fluker to tell police[,
i.e.,] that Ronald and Tyler Heining attempted to bribe and
influence Fluker into not testifying in an ethics case against
[Councilman Little]." Dean and Abernathy moved for a summary
judgment pursuant to Rule 56(c), Ala. R. Civ. P., denying that
2District Attorney Randy Moeller testified in his
deposition that the charges against the Heinings were nolle
prossed because Fluker "was a problematic witness." 
3The Heinings did not sue Fluker or Lt. George.
6
1180273
they had taken any action to falsely accuse the Heinings of a
crime and contending that, in any event, Lt. George's
independent investigation into Fluker's allegations insulated
them from liability.  After conducting two hearings and
allowing 
the 
Heinings 
to 
produce 
supplemental information, the
trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of Dean and
Abernathy, concluding, as a matter of law, that Lt. George's
investigation into the allegations of bribery and witness-
intimidation established probable cause to support the
Heinings' arrests.  The Heinings filed a motion to alter, 
amend, or vacate that judgment, which the trial court denied.
This appeal followed.
  Standard of Review
"This Court's review of a summary judgment is de
novo. Williams v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
886 So. 2d 72, 74 (Ala. 2003). We apply the same
standard of review as the trial court applied.
Specifically, we must determine whether the movant
has made a prima facie showing that no genuine issue
of material fact exists and that the movant is
entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Rule
56(c), Ala. R. Civ. P.; Blue Cross & Blue Shield of
Alabama v. Hodurski, 899 So. 2d 949, 952–53 (Ala.
2004). In making such a determination, we must
review the evidence in the light most favorable to
the nonmovant. Wilson v. Brown, 496 So. 2d 756, 758
(Ala. 1986). Once the movant makes a prima facie
showing that there is no genuine issue of material
fact, the burden then shifts to the nonmovant to
7
1180273
produce 'substantial evidence' as to the existence
of a genuine issue of material fact. Bass v.
SouthTrust Bank of Baldwin County, 538 So. 2d 794,
797–98 (Ala. 1989); Ala. Code 1975, § 12–21–12.
'[S]ubstantial evidence is evidence of such weight
and quality that fair-minded persons in the exercise
of impartial judgment can reasonably infer the
existence of the fact sought to be proved.' West v.
Founders Life Assur. Co. of Fla., 547 So. 2d 870,
871 (Ala. 1989)."
Dow v. Alabama Democratic Party, 897 So. 2d 1035, 1038-39
(Ala. 2004).  See also Wilson v. Brown, 496 So. 2d 756, 758
(Ala. 1986)(noting that "[s]ummary judgment for a defendant is
proper when there is no genuine issue of a material fact as to
any element of a cause of action and the defendant is entitled
to a judgment as a matter of law").
Discussion
The False-Arrest/False-Imprisonment Claims
  
An essential element to establishing claims of false
arrest and false imprisonment is the lack of probable cause.
The dispositive issue presented for our review is whether the
trial court correctly ruled, as a matter of law, that Lt.
George had probable cause to arrest the Heinings. 
This Court has stated the following concerning false
arrest and false imprisonment:
8
1180273
"A false arrest requires proof '"that the
defendant caused [her] to be arrested without
probable cause."' Walker v. City of Huntsville, 62
So. 3d 474, 493 (Ala. 2010) (quoting Higgins v.
Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., 512 So. 2d 766 (Ala. 1987)).
'[F]or a detention to be valid, the officer must
reasonably, 
and 
in 
good 
faith, 
suspect 
the
individual detained of being involved in some form
of criminality.' Walker, 62 So. 3d at 493 (quoting
Higgins, 512 So. 2d at 768). 'Section 6–5–170, Ala.
Code 1975, defines false imprisonment as "the
unlawful detention of the person of another for any
length of time whereby he is deprived of his
personal liberty."' Walker, 62 So. 3d at 492. A
false arrest will support a claim of false
imprisonment. Upshaw v. McArdle, 650 So. 2d 875
(Ala. 
1994). 
As 
to 
false-arrest 
and
false-imprisonment claims, '[p]robable cause exists
where the facts and circumstances within the
officer's knowledge and of which he has reasonable
trustworthy information are sufficient to warrant a
man of reasonable caution in the belief that an
offense has been or is being committed.' Walker, 62
So. 3d at 492 (internal quotation marks omitted)."
Ex parte Harris, 216 So. 3d 1201, 1213 (Ala. 2016).
Dean 
and 
Abernathy 
acknowledge 
a 
line 
of 
cases
recognizing that liability for false arrest or false
imprisonment may be predicated on a person's misconduct in
falsely accusing another of a crime, although they deny that
they falsely accused the Heinings of a crime. See Crown Cent.
Petroleum Corp. v. Williams, 679 So. 2d 651, 654 (Ala.
1996)(noting that "persons other than those who actually
effect an arrest or imprisonment may be so involved with or
9
1180273
related to the act or proceeding as instigators or
participants therein as 
to be liable for false imprisonment").
Dean and Abernathy argue, however, that an individual is not
considered to have "instigated" an arrest for purposes of a
false-arrest or false-imprisonment claim when he or she
provides information that leads a third party, such as Lt.
George, to conduct an independent investigation resulting in
the plaintiff's arrest.  Dean and Abernathy cite Standard Oil
Co. v. Davis, 208 Ala. 565, 567, 94 So. 754, 756 (1922), a
suit alleging false imprisonment in which this Court stated:
"The inquiry is: (1) whether or not the defendant or
his agent directed, commanded, or in any way
instigated the arrest; and (2) whether such conduct,
if shown, was a material factor in causing the
officer to make the arrest. Of course if the officer
acts solely upon his own judgment and initiative,
the defendant would not be responsible even though
he had directed or requested such action, and even
though he were actuated by malice or other improper
motive."
(Emphasis added.)   
Dean and Abernathy assert that Lt. George conducted an
independent investigation into the allegations of bribery and
witness-intimidation and that, based on that investigation,
Lt. George acted on his own judgment and initiative in
procuring the Heinings' arrests. The means Lt. George used to
10
1180273
gather facts concerning the investigation are set forth in the
trial court's order:
"Interviewing both Fluker and Fluker's wife, who
Fluker stated was present during the Heinings'
attempt to bribe and intimidate [Fluker].
"Presenting a photographic lineup to both Fluker and
Fluker's wife.  Fluker identified Tyler Heining from
the lineup.  Fluker's wife confirmed the events but
was unable to identify the Heinings from the
photographic lineup.
"Reviewing security camera footage from [Scott's
Grocery] 
where 
the 
alleged 
crimes 
occurred. 
Although the footage did not show the Heinings or
their vehicle, [Lt.] George testified in [his]
deposition that he saw a vehicle that looked like
Fluker's vehicle at [Scott's Grocery] at the time
that Fluker said the Heinings tried to bribe and
intimidate him.  And, because of the angle of the
camera, [Lt.] George felt he could not and would not
have seen another vehicle pulling up.
"Attempting to secure Ronald Heining's phone to see
if it contained any evidence."
(Footnote omitted.)  
The methods used to gather the underlying facts in Lt.
George's investigation and those underlying facts are not in
dispute. Lt. George  interviewed both Fluker and his wife, he
presented them with photographic lineups, he viewed the
surveillance video at Scott's Grocery, and he attempted to
secure Ronald Heining's cellular telephone.  Accordingly,
11
1180273
because Lt. George conducted an independent investigation,
Dean and Abernathy demonstrated a prima facie entitlement to
a judgment as a matter of law. See Fina Oil & Chem. Co. v.
Hood, 621 So. 2d 253, 257 (Ala. 1993)(noting that "[i]f the
facts relating to a determination of probable cause are
undisputed, the question of probable cause is one of law for
the court and is not an issue for the jury to decide").  
In response to Dean and Abernathy's properly supported
summary-judgment motion, the 
Heinings rely on the affidavit of
Fluker, dated July 11, 2015, in which Fluker states that Dean
and Abernathy induced him to make false charges against the
Heinings in exchange for promises of additional pay, so long
as he cooperated with their scheme. The Heinings claim that
Fluker's affidavit presents a genuine issue of material fact
as to whether Dean and Abernathy instigated the Heinings'
arrest and whether their conduct was a material factor in
causing Lt. George to procure the Heinings' arrests.  However,
as noted in Standard Oil, if Lt. George acted solely upon his
own judgment and initiative in procuring the Heinings'
arrests, Dean and Abernathy would not be liable, even if they
acted with malice or other improper motive.  
12
1180273
The Heinings claim that Lt. George could not have acted
solely upon his own judgment and initiative in procuring their
arrests because, they say, the video surveillance at Scott's
Grocery provided no "concrete" evidence to corroborate the
allegations that the Heinings were there at the time the
Flukers alleged.4  For this reason, they contend that Lt.
George based his decision to arrest solely on the false
information provided by the Flukers. The Heinings point to Lt.
George's deposition testimony, in which  he stated that, other
than the Flukers' statements, he had no concrete evidence
indicating that the Heinings were actually at Scott's Grocery
at the time alleged by Fluker. However, concrete evidence is
not the standard for determining probable cause to arrest. 
In Dixon v. State, 588 So. 2d 903, 906 (Ala. 1991), this
Court defined probable cause as follows:
"Probable cause exists if facts and circumstances
known to the arresting officer are sufficient to
4The Heinings also argued to the trial court for the first
time in their supplemental opposition to Dean and Abernathy's
summary-judgment motion that Lt. George failed to interview
alibi witnesses that "would have" conclusively established
that they were not present at Scott's Grocery at the time
alleged by the Flukers.  However, as the trial court noted,
the Heinings never presented Lt. George with the names of any
alibi witnesses to interview. 
13
1180273
warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe
that the suspect has committed a crime. United
States v. Rollins, 699 F.2d 530 (11th Cir.) cert.
denied, 464 U.S. 933, 104 S. Ct. 335, 78 L. Ed. 2d
305 (1983). 'In dealing with probable cause,
however, as the very name implies, we deal with
probabilities. These are not technical; they are the
factual and practical considerations of everyday
life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal
technicians act....' Brinegar v. United States, 338
U.S. 160, 175, 69 S. Ct. 1302, 1310, 93 L. Ed. 1879,
1891 (1949). '"The substance of all the definitions
of probable cause is a reasonable ground for belief
of guilt."' Id. 'Probable cause to arrest is
measured against an objective standard and, if the
standard is met, it is unnecessary that the officer
subjectively believe that he has a basis for the
arrest.' Cox v. State, 489 So. 2d 612 (Ala. Cr. App.
1985). The officer need not have enough evidence or
information to support a conviction in order to have
probable cause for arrest. Only a probability, not
a prima facie showing, of criminal activity is the
standard of probable cause.  Stone v. State, 501 So.
2d 562 (Ala. Cr. App. 1986)...."
Lt. George stated in his deposition that the surveillance
video showed a vehicle that looked like Fluker's vehicle at
Scott's Grocery at the time Fluker alleged he was offered the
money. He further stated that, because of the angle of the
surveillance camera, he would not have seen another vehicle
such as the Heinings' vehicle pulling up to the fuel pumps.
Lt. George also interviewed Fluker's wife, Amy, who confirmed
the events that transpired at Scott's Grocery, although she
stated that she was unable to get a good look at the
14
1180273
individuals in the vehicle allegedly occupied by the 
Heinings. 
The fact that the video surveillance did not provide concrete
evidence that the Heinings were present at Scott's Grocery at
the time of the alleged crimes does not mean that Lt. George
based his decision to arrest solely on the Flukers'
allegations. In fact, Lt. George was never asked his opinion
about whether he thought Fluker's statements were false, nor
was he asked about the materiality of any of the false or
misleading statements Fluker allegedly made.  As noted by the
trial court, Lt. George was unaware that any of the
information presented to him by Fluker had been allegedly
"manufactured" by Dean and Abernathy, and there was no
evidence indicating that Lt. George was part of any alleged
conspiracy 
in 
investigating 
Fluker's 
allegations. 
Accordingly,
Fluker's 
affidavit 
testimony, 
recanting 
his 
original
allegations, does not undermine Lt. George's independent
investigation, nor does it undermine the existence of 
probable
cause to arrest.  Simply put, Fluker's affidavit failed to
raise a triable issue of fact because the essential facts
underlying the investigation were undisputed and, viewed
15
1180273
objectively, support a finding of probable cause as a matter
of law.
The Malicious-Prosecution Claim
The Heinings' claim of malicious prosecution also
requires them to demonstrate by substantial evidence, among
other things, that Dean and Abernathy lacked probable cause to
instigate the criminal prosecution: 
"In order to succeed in a malicious prosecution
action, a plaintiff must prove that a prior judicial
proceeding was instigated by the present defendant
without probable cause and with malice; that the
prior proceeding ended in favor of the present
plaintiff; and that the present plaintiff was
damaged thereby."
Fina Oil, 621 So. 2d at 256.  Probable cause in the context of
a 
malicious-prosecution claim 
is 
defined 
as 
"'"'[a] 
reasonable
ground for suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently
strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man in the belief
that the person accused is guilty of the offense charged.'"'"
Moon v. Pillion, 2 So. 3d 842, 846 (Ala. 2008)(quoting Eidson
v. Olin Corp., 527 So. 2d 1283, 1285 (Ala. 1988), quoting in
turn Parisian Co. v. Williams, 203 Ala. 378, 383, 83 So. 122,
127 (1919)).
16
1180273
The Heinings argue that Fluker's affidavit, stating that
Dean and 
Abernathy influenced him to provide false information
to Lt. George, is substantial evidence that Dean and Abernathy
maliciously instigated the charges of bribery and witness-
intimidation.  Again, as indicated in Standard Oil, in a suit
alleging false imprisonment, "if the officer acts solely upon
his own judgment and initiative, the defendant would not be
responsible even though he had directed or requested such
action, and even though he were actuated by malice or other
improper motive."  208 Ala. at 567, 94 So. at 756.  In
Dismukes v. Trivers Clothing Co., 221 Ala. 29, 32, 127 So.
188, 190 (1930), this Court held that the principle set forth
in Standard Oil "is equally applicable to suits for malicious
prosecution."  See also 54 C.J.S. Malicious Prosecution § 13,
p. 746 (2010) (noting that "[i]t is a complete defense to a
malicious prosecution action that the defendant was not the
determining factor in the decision to prosecute").  We also
find persuasive the rationale stated by the Texas Supreme
Court in King v. Graham, 126 S.W.3d 75, 78 (Tex. 2003):  
"[A] person who knowingly provides false information
to the grand jury or a law enforcement official who
has the discretion to decide whether to prosecute a
criminal violation cannot be said to have caused the
17
1180273
prosecution if the information was immaterial to the
decision to prosecute. If the decision to prosecute
would have been made with or without the false
information, the complainant did not cause the
prosecution 
by 
supplying 
false 
information.
Therefore, to recover for malicious prosecution when
the decision to prosecute is within another's
discretion, the plaintiff has the burden of proving
that that decision would not have been made but for
the false information supplied by the defendant."
The Heinings failed to provide substantial evidence that
Lt. George's decision to prosecute was based solely on the
story allegedly fabricated by Dean and Abernathy or that his
decision to prosecute would not have occurred but for the
story allegedly fabricated by Dean and Abernathy. Because the
facts before Lt. George at the time the criminal proceeding
was initiated against the Heinings gave rise to probable cause
to support the criminal proceedings, we conclude that the
summary judgment entered in favor of Dean and Abernathy on the
malicious-prosecution claim was proper. 
Conclusion
Although the facts concerning Fluker's reliability and
credibility and whether Dean and Abernathy fabricated a story
to implicate the Heinings in a bribery scheme are disputed,
those facts have no bearing on whether Lt. George acted on his
own initiative and exercised his independent judgment in
18
1180273
believing that a crime had been committed. Once the trial
court determined that there was no dispute concerning the
underlying 
facts 
of 
Lt. 
George's 
independent 
investigation, 
it
became irrelevant whether the information conveyed to Lt.
George by Fluker had been originally fabricated by Dean and
Abernathy. The summary judgment in favor of Dean and Abernathy
on the claims of false arrest, false imprisonment, and
malicious 
prosecution 
are 
affirmed. 
Additionally, 
the
Heinings' conspiracy claim is moot.  It is well established
that a civil-conspiracy claim cannot exist in the absence of
the underlying tort claims, here false arrest, false
imprisonment, and 
malicious prosecution. 
Willis 
v. 
Parker, 
814
So. 2d 857 (Ala. 2001).5 
AFFIRMED. 
Parker, C.J., and Bolin, Wise, and Stewart, JJ., concur.
5The trial court noted in its order that the Heinings had
conceded to the dismissal of their conspiracy claim.  The
Heinings argue, and Dean and Abernathy admit, that the
Heinings never agreed to the dismissal of their conspiracy
claim. As indicated, however, any argument concerning the
conspiracy claim is moot given our ruling on the underlying
claims of false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious
prosecution. 
19