Hoffman v. Davenport-Metcalf, 851 A.2d 1083 (2004)

Citation: Hoffman v. Davenport-Metcalf, 851 A.2d 1083 (2004)
Parent Document: Hoffman v. Davenport-Metcalf, 851 A.2d 1083 (2004)
Jurisdiction: Rhode Island (state)
Effective Date: 2004-06-21
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2095214/hoffman-v-davenport-metcalf/ ↗

Full Text

1,491 chars

Any individual has the right, perhaps even the responsibility, to report to the police conduct that he or she in good faith believes to be illegal, particularly if he or she is the victim of such conduct. Rather than showing a nefarious or otherwise ulterior purpose, the record suggests that the police investigated the complaint in a responsible manner, spoke to the parties, reviewed the evidence and made an independent decision to prosecute. Moreover, the "process" achieved at least one purpose for which it was designed. Ms. Davenport-Metcalf contacted the police presumably to stop the alleged harassment, and no-contact orders were, in fact, issued when plaintiffs were arraigned. The fact that the complaints were subsequently dismissed, even if, as plaintiffs suggest, the judge found there was insufficient evidence, does not lead inexorably to the conclusion that Ms. Davenport-Metcalf initiated the proceeding maliciously or to gain an advantage "not properly involved in the proceeding itself.'" Butera, 798 A.2d at 354 (quoting W. Page Keeton, Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts § 121 at 897 (5th ed. 1984)). Indeed, the motion justice found that Ms. Davenport-Metcalf *1091 had sufficient grounds to contact the police. In responding to plaintiffs' argument that defendants had no basis for initiating any of the actions against them, she said "[t]he problem is, all the exhibits tend to show that she did have a reason to bring an eviction action and to press charges."

Other Sections in This Document (104)

Full Text