Janetka v. Dabe

In Janetka v. Dabe, 892 F.2d 187 (2d Cir. 1989),[1] the Second Circuit considered whether, under New York law, a plaintiff could satisfy the element of "favorable termination" requisite to a malicious prosecution claim when he had been acquitted on a misdemeanor charge (resisting arrest) but convicted of a less serious charge (disorderly conduct, a violation).[1]

Janetka v. Dabe
CourtUnited States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Full case nameJanetka v. Dabe
ArguedNovember 2, 1989
DecidedDecember 15, 1989
Citation(s)892 F.2d 187; 29 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 612
Court membership
Judge(s) sittingRoger Miner, John Daniel Mahoney, Gregory W. Carman (Ct. Int. Trade)
Case opinions
MajorityMiner, joined by a unanimous court

Background

In 1986, Andrew F. Janetka, Jr. was arrested by Darrell Dabe of the Suffolk County Police Department for resisting arrest. Janetka was found guilty of a lesser charge, disorderly conduct, and Dabe was reprimanded for how he documented the incident. Janetka later filed suit against the county under the concept of respondeat superior. The court reiterated that, under New York law,

  • A "favorable termination" is a termination indicating that the accused is not guilty.[2]
  • When the termination is indecisive, the surrounding facts must be examined to determine "whether the failure to proceed implies a lack of reasonable grounds for the prosecution."[3]

Holding

The court held that this acquittal constituted "favorable termination".

Reasoning

1) the multiple criminal charges were "distinct," i.e.

(a) their elements are distinct,
(b) neither is a lesser included offense of the other, and
(c) (most importantly) the underlying acts were committed against different people (the disorderly conduct charge involved Janetka's actions directed at the unidentified Hispanic man; the resisting arrest charge involved his actions directed at the officers' attempts to arrest him).

2) to reject a malicious prosecution claim would be "particularly inappropriate" where the acquitted charge was the more serious one, because then police officers could add unsupported, serious charges to legitimate, minor ones with impunity.

Analysis

The holding of Janetka is overcome by arguing that all the charges for which plaintiff was prosecuted stem from the same criminal activity and substantially overlap.

References
  1. Janetka v. Dabe, 892 F.2d 187 (2d Cir. 1989).
  2. Janetka, 892 F.2d at 190, citing Singleton v. City of New York, 632 F.2d 185, 193 (2d Cir. 1980).
  3. Janetka, 892 F.2d at 189, citing Conway v. Village of Mount Kisco, 750 F.2d 205, 215 (2d Cir. 1984).

Text of Janetka v. Dabe, 892 F.2d 187 (2d Cir. 1989) is available from: Google Scholar  Justia  Leagle  OpenJurist 

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.