Rick Patrick - Greene Publishing, Inc.
On Wednesday, Oct. 26, former Madison County Supervisor of Elections Jada Woods Williams lost a key motion in her false arrest lawsuit against the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) and FDLE Special Agent Craig Riley. According to court documents from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, in Tallahassee, the Defendants (FDLE and Riley) filed a motion for a summary judgment. The Plaintiff (Williams) responded in opposition to the motion. A summary judgment is: A procedural device used during civil litigation to promptly and expeditiously dispose of a case without a trial. It is used when there is no dispute as to the material facts of the case and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Summary Judgment. (n.d.) West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. (2008). Retrieved November 1 2016 from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/summary+judgment ).
This lawsuit stems from events related to the school board election of 2010 between Abra Tina Johnson and Richard Henderson. In this election, Henderson won a significant majority of the votes in early voting (58 percent to 42 percent) and at the polls (53 percent to 47 percent), however, he lost the election due to a “non-proportionate” number of absentee ballot votes (72 percent for Johnson and 28 percent for Henderson). When Henderson complained to the Division of Elections (DOE) about possible fraud in the handling of absentee ballots, his allegations were referred to the FDLE for investigation. In November of 2010, the FDLE assigned Riley to handle the investigation, along with FBI Special Agent Theresa Gustafson. During their year long investigation, Riley and Gustafson determined that, among other things, individuals were able to pick up more absentee ballots than permitted by statute, the Supervisor of Elections office mailed absentee ballots to third-party addresses in violation of Florida law, and the Supervisor of Elections distributed some absentee ballots without the required voter authorization. While Riley and Gustafson found no evidence of fraud, they concluded that the evidence did support a charge of neglect of duty and corrupt practices under Florida Statute § 104.051(2). Under this statute, “a[ny] official who willfully refuses or willfully neglects to perform his or her duties as described by this election code is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083 (up to one year in prison and/or a fine of up to $1,000).”
On Oct. 31, 2011, an affidavit for arrest was submitted to Judge E. Vernon Douglas of the Circuit Court for the Third Judicial Circuit in and for Madison County. Before this affidavit was presented to Judge Douglas, it was reviewed by the FDLE's legal department and the state attorney and assistant state attorney in Florida's Second Judicial Circuit, and it was determined that there was probable cause for Williams’ arrest for neglect of duty and corrupt practices in violation of Florida Statute. Riley and Gustafson then appeared before Judge Douglas, at which time they signed their eight page affidavit under oath. After consideration of the agents' sworn affidavit, Judge Douglas signed a warrant for Williams' arrest on 17 counts under Florida Statute § 104.051(2).
Williams was arrested on Nov. 1, 2011. That same day, Gov. Rick Scott suspended Williams from her position as Supervisor of Elections. The DOE sent staff members to review operations at the Madison elections office. The DOE found that, “Ms. Williams' ability to perform her tasks as mandated by the Florida Constitution and Florida Statute are in question. Her apparent lack of knowledge of federal and state election laws, public records retention law, and basic management principles are reflected in the way that she managed her office. Her autocratic leadership style made her staff highly ineffective in her absence. Additionally, her failure to carry out the responsibilities associated with her position was evident in the lack of existing procedures within the office, lack of security, lack of accountability, and disorganization throughout the workplace in the Supervisor of Elections office.”
Williams was prosecuted by the State Attorney's Office for the Second Judicial Circuit. The charges were dismissed by a county judge in Leon County on April 15, 2013. Williams then filed her lawsuit in state court against the FDLE and Special Agent Riley, asserting a federal false arrest claim against Riley in his individual capacity, and two false arrest claims under state law against the FDLE and Riley. The case was removed to federal court on Dec. 9, 2015.
In her lawsuit, Williams claimed that Riley violated her fourth amendment rights by arresting her without probable cause. In particular, Williams challenged Riley's affidavit for arrest claiming that it contained “an assortment of truths, half truths[,] lies and omissions.” The FDLE and Riley contend that Riley is entitled to summary judgment based on the doctrine of qualified immunity. This doctrine protects government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages in so far as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. The court found that Riley was acting within the scope of his discretionary authority when he executed the affidavit that was challenged by Williams. If probable cause supported the arrest of Williams, Riley is entitled to qualified immunity. When a judge issues a warrant prior to an arrest, the judge's act typically insulates the initiating officer from a false arrest charge. The existence of a warrant will not shield an officer from liability if the warrant was secured based on an affidavit that contained misstatements or omissions that were made either intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth; unless there is sufficient content in the affidavit, even without the misstatements or omissions, to support a finding of probable cause. Williams alleged that the “facts stated in the affidavit were procured and/or contrived primarily by Riley.”
The court found that the record did not support Williams' contention that the affidavit was “an exercise in creative writing” prompted by Riley's “political posturing, voter suppression, and racial animus and/or malice because of [Williams'] race.” The court also found that the record does not support Williams' argument that the affidavit contained misstatements or omissions that were made by Riley, either intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth. Williams maintained that Riley included misleading statements about what the law required with respect to the mailing of absentee ballots. When asked at her deposition to be more specific about Riley's alleged “misleading statements,” Williams responded with “I don't remember the specific statute, but it's in the statutes, where there's some other circumstances, where you can mail it to another, but I'm not for sure of the exact statute.”
Given the record and the fact that not one but two agents from separate agencies conducted an investigation over the course of a year, the court had reason to find that the affidavit prepared by Riley and Gustafson was valid and that there was probable cause for Williams' arrest. The court found that Riley is entitled to qualified immunity from suit for false arrest.
In the other two counts of her lawsuit, Williams' asserted false arrest claims under state law against Riley and the FDLE. In such cases, the existence of probable cause is an affirmative defense, to be proven by the defendant, in this case, the FDLE and Riley. Based on the evidence and the record, the court found that Williams was arrested pursuant to a valid warrant supported by probable cause. That finding was determined to be fatal to Williams' false arrest claims. Because of this, the Defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted. Costs will be taxed against Williams.