Randall v. Lemke
726 N.E.2d 183, 311 Ill. App. 3d 848, 244 Ill. Dec. 587 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A private citizen is not liable for malicious prosecution or false imprisonment for making a false report to the police if the subsequent prosecution and arrest are based on separate, independently discovered offenses, rather than on the false information provided.
Facts:
- On February 1, 1998, Fred Lemke called the police.
- Lemke falsely reported to the police that Robert Randall was in his vehicle with a gun.
- Based solely on Lemke's report, a police officer pulled over Randall's vehicle.
- At the time of the stop, Randall did not have a gun.
- Police arrested Randall during the traffic stop.
- The charges filed against Randall were for DUI, driving with no headlights, and other traffic offenses, not for any weapons-related offense.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert Randall filed a first amended complaint against Fred Lemke in the circuit court of Lake County, a trial court.
- The complaint asserted claims for malicious prosecution (Count I) and false imprisonment (Count II).
- Randall issued a subpoena for Lemke's telephone records.
- Lemke filed a section 2-615 motion to dismiss Randall's complaint for failure to state a claim and a motion to quash the subpoena.
- The trial court granted both of Lemke's motions, dismissing the complaint and quashing the subpoena.
- Randall, as appellant, appealed the trial court's orders to the Illinois Appellate Court, Second District.
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 private citizen who makes a false report to police instigate a malicious prosecution or cause a false imprisonment when the resulting arrest and criminal charges are for offenses entirely unrelated to the information in the false report?
Opinions:
Majority - Presiding Justice Bowman
No. A private citizen cannot be held liable for malicious prosecution or false imprisonment if the police's decision to arrest and prosecute is based on information discovered independently of the citizen's false report. For malicious prosecution, a defendant must have 'commenced' the proceeding, which requires the prosecution to be 'based upon' the false information provided. Here, the prosecution was for traffic offenses, not the weapons possession Lemke reported, so Lemke did not commence the prosecution. Similarly, for false imprisonment, a private defendant is only liable if they directed the arrest or if their information was the 'sole basis' for the arrest. Because the arrest was for unrelated charges, Lemke's report was not the sole basis, and he did not procure the restraint.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the causation requirement for malicious prosecution and false imprisonment claims against private citizens who report information to law enforcement. By adopting the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 653, the court establishes that a plaintiff must show the prosecution was 'based upon' the defendant's false report, not merely that the report was a 'but-for' cause of the police interaction. This ruling limits the scope of liability for informers, protecting them from claims when police develop their own independent grounds for an arrest and prosecution. It solidifies the principle that an officer's independent discretion in bringing unrelated charges breaks the causal chain between the false report and the legal injury.
Unlock the full brief for Randall v. Lemke