Bright v. Ailshie
641 N.W.2d 587, 465 Mich. 770 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Michigan statute MCL 764.16(b), a private person's authority to make a felony arrest is contingent on the person arrested having actually committed a felony. The existence of a facially valid arrest warrant or probable cause does not provide a legal defense for a private person who arrests an innocent individual.
Facts:
- Plaintiff Dennis Bright's brother, Vincent Bright, was arrested in Missouri on a drug charge.
- During his arrest, Vincent Bright identified himself to police using his brother Dennis Bright's name, address, date of birth, and social security number.
- Vincent entered into a bond agreement with defendant A-Able Bail Bonds, which was issued in Dennis Bright's name and signed by Vincent using that name.
- After being released on bond, Vincent absconded.
- Consequently, a Missouri court issued an arrest warrant in the name of Dennis Bright, using his personal identifying information.
- Defendant Tim Moore, a bounty hunter working for A-Able Bail Bonds, apprehended Dennis Bright in Detroit.
- Moore transported Dennis Bright back to the Missouri court.
- In Missouri, authorities confirmed Dennis Bright was the wrong person, released him, and amended the warrant to name his brother, Vincent.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Dennis Bright filed a complaint in a Michigan trial court against defendants A-Able Bail Bonds and Tim Moore for assault, battery, false imprisonment, and other torts.
- The trial court granted summary disposition in favor of the defendants.
- Bright, as appellant, appealed the decision to the Michigan Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the case.
- Bright, as appellant, then applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Michigan.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a facially valid arrest warrant shield a private person from civil liability for torts such as false imprisonment when they arrest an individual who has not actually committed a felony, contrary to the plain language of Michigan's private person arrest statute?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. A facially valid arrest warrant does not provide a private person with the legal authority to arrest an individual who has not actually committed a felony. The court's reasoning is rooted in a strict interpretation of MCL 764.16, which governs arrests by private persons. The statute's plain language in subsection (b) permits an arrest only if 'the person to be arrested has committed a felony.' This creates a standard of strict liability, not one based on probable cause or reasonable belief. The court explicitly rejected the lower court's importation of a probable cause standard, noting that while such a standard may have existed at common law, it was abrogated by the legislature. Furthermore, the court distinguished the authority of private persons from that of law enforcement officers, who are protected when acting on a facially valid warrant. The legislature’s inclusion of a 'reasonable cause' standard in a different subsection of the same statute (for merchant arrests) demonstrates it knew how to create such a standard and intentionally omitted it from the subsection governing felony arrests by private persons. Because it is undisputed that Dennis Bright did not commit a felony, Moore's arrest was not authorized by the statute.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a bright-line rule of strict liability for private persons, including bounty hunters and bail agents, who make felony arrests in Michigan. By refusing to read a 'probable cause' or 'good faith' exception into the governing statute, the court places the entire risk of mistaken identity on the arresting private party. This holding sharply distinguishes the authority and legal protection afforded to private citizens from that of sworn law enforcement officers, who are generally shielded from liability when executing a facially valid warrant. The ruling significantly heightens the legal risk for the bail bond industry and may force changes in their apprehension and verification procedures to avoid liability for torts like false imprisonment.
