MAYRELIS ZAMORA
v.
CITY OF MIAMI
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
An arrest made pursuant to a facially valid warrant issued by an entity authorized to issue warrants confers legal authority on the arresting agency and defeats a false imprisonment claim, even if the warrant was erroneously issued.
[1] To state a cause of action for false imprisonment, a plaintiff must establish the unlawful detention and deprivation of liberty against their will, without legal authorit…
[2] Arrest under a warrant, valid in form, issued by competent authority on a sufficient complaint, does not constitute false imprisonment.
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“When a claimant is arrested by an agency based on a facially sufficient and validly issued arrest warrant, that person cannot satisfy the elements of a false arrest claim because the warrant confers 'legal authority' on the arresting agency. This is true even if the warrant was erroneously issued by another entity but still appears to be facially valid to the arresting agency.”
Florez v. Broward Sheriff's Office, 270 So. 3d 417, 421-422 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)
Mayrelis Zamora was arrested by the City of Miami based on an arrest warrant. Zamora brought a false imprisonment action against the City of Miami.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse False Arrest cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed March 27, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D22-1336 Lower Tribunal No. 16-18369
________________
Mayrelis Zamora, et al.,
Appellants,
vs.
City of Miami,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Peter R. Lopez, Judge. Wasson & Associates, Chartered, and Roy D. Wasson; Law Offices of Vincent Duffy, P.A., and Vincent Duffy (Deerfield Beach), for appellants. Victoria Méndez, City Attorney, and Eric J. Eves, Senior Appellate Counsel, for appellee. Before SCALES, MILLER and GORDO, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Harder v. Edwards, 174 So. 3d 524, 530 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (“To state a cause of action for false imprisonment, the plaintiff must establish four elements: ‘1) the unlawful detention and deprivation of liberty of a person 2) against that person's will 3) without legal authority or ‘color of authority’ and 4) which is unreasonable and unwarranted under the circumstances.’” (quoting Mathis v. Coats, 24 So. 3d 1284, 1289 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2010))); Fisher v. Payne, 113 So. 378, 380 (Fla. 1927) (“Arrest under a warrant, valid in form, issued by competent authority on a sufficient complaint, is not false imprisonment . . . .” (quoting Whitten v. Bennett, 86 F. 405, 406 (2nd Cir. 1898))); Dodson v. Solomon, 183 So. 825, 826 (Fla. 1938) (“If the imprisonment is under legal authority it may be malicious but it cannot be false. This is true where legal authority is shown by valid process, even if irregular or voidable.” (quoting S.H. Kress & Co. v. Powel, 180 So. 757, 762 (Fla. 1938))); Florez v. Broward Sheriff’s Office, 270 So. 3d 417, 421-422 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (“When a claimant is arrested by an agency based on a facially sufficient and validly issued arrest warrant, that person cannot satisfy the elements of a false arrest claim because the warrant confers ‘legal authority’ on the arresting agency. This is true even if the warrant was erroneously issued by another entity but still appears to be facially valid to the arresting agency . . . The reason for this appears to be that law enforcement does not have the discretion to disregard a facially valid warrant issued by an entity authorized to issue warrants.”) (footnote omitted); Andrews v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 768 So. 2d 1257, 1263 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (“[E]ven if the warrants upon which [the plaintiff] had been arrested were issued improperly by the [Parole] Commission based upon a mistake as to the facts or the law, the trial court correctly dismissed the false imprisonment claim against [the Department], because [the Department] was entitled to accept the warrants as lawful, as they were regular on their face and issued by a legal body having authority to issue warrants.”); ACandS, Inc. v. Redd, 703 So. 2d 492, 493-94 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (stating that a loss of consortium claim is a derivative right that is dependent on the spouse’s ability to recover against the same defendant).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (27 total)
-
S. H. Kress & Co. v. Powell, 132 Fla. 471 (Fla. 1938)…mage conforming to legal standards resulting to plaintiff. If any one of these elements is lacking, the result is fatal to the action.” To like effect see Duval Jewelry Co. v. Smith, 102 Fla. 717, 136 So. 878, 38 C. J. 386-387; and Fisher v. Payne, 93 Fla. 1085, 113 So. 378. In the last cited case, this Court dealt with some of the distinctions between false imprisonment and malicious prosecution, in the course of which it was said that “False imprisonment is the unlawful restraint of a person contrary to…
-
Johnson v. Meyer Weiner also known as M. Weiner, 155 Fla. 169 (Fla. 1944)…action which-the trial judge had in mind. False imprisonment is the unlawful restraint of a person against his will, the gist of which action is the unlawful detention of the plaintiff and deprivation of his liberty. Fisher v. Payne, 93 Fla. 1085, 113 So. 378. In the ease of Kress & Co. v. Powell, 132 Fla. 471, 180 So. 757, we quoted from 25 C.J. 444, with approval, the following statement: “Although not always observed, the distinction between malicious prosecution and false imprisonment is fundamental…
-
Robertson v. Indus. Ins. Co., 75 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 1954)…urse of a judicial proceeding are absolutely privileged, if they are relevant and material to the cause or subject of inquiry, and that no action for damages will lie therefor. Myers v. Hodges, 53 Fla. 197, 44 So. 357; Fisher v. Payne, 93 Fla. 1085, 113 So. 378. “This rule of privilege as applied to statements made in the course of judicial proceedings is not restricted to trials of actions, but includes proceedings before a competent court or magistrate in the due course of law or the administration of j…
Previewing 3 of 27 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- S. H. Kress & Co. v. Powell, 132 Fla. 471 (Fla. 1938)
- Andrews v. The Fla. Parole Comm'n & The Fla. Dep't of Corr., 768 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Mathis v. Coats, 24 So. 3d 1284 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
- Dodson v. Solomon, 134 Fla. 284 (Fla. 1938)
- ACandS, Inc. v. Redd, 703 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Harder v. Edwards, 174 So. 3d 524 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)