Robert Ford & a. v. Town of Fitzwilliam & a.

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
SUPREME COURT
In Case No. 2023-0017, Robert Ford & a. v. Town of
Fitzwilliam & a., the court on September 22, 2023, issued the
following order:
The court has reviewed the written arguments and the record submitted
on appeal, and has determined to resolve the case by way of this order. See
Sup. Ct. R. 20(2). Plaintiff Jean Ford appeals an order of the Superior Court
(Smith, J.) granting summary judgment to defendants Town of Fitzwilliam, its
police chief, Leonard DiSalvo, and Fitzwilliam police officer Daniel Moore
(municipal defendants), and denying her cross-motion for summary judgment.
On appeal, Ford argues that the court erred by determining that there was
probable cause sufficient to support her arrest and prosecution on a charge of
disorderly conduct, see RSA 644:2 (2016), thereby entitling the municipal
defendants to summary judgment on her claims arising under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 (2018) and related state law claims, and that the municipal defendants
were entitled to immunity with respect to such claims. We affirm.
In reviewing the trial court’s decision on cross-motions for summary
judgment, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to each party in
that party’s capacity as the nonmoving party, and if no genuine issue of
material fact exists, we determine whether the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Balise v. Balise, 170 N.H. 521, 523 (2017). We
will affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment if our review of the
evidence discloses no genuine issues of material fact, that is, facts that would
affect the outcome of the case, and if the moving party is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law. Id. We review the trial court’s application of law to the
facts de novo. Id. at 524.
A police officer has probable cause to arrest a person when the officer
has sufficient, trustworthy information to warrant a reasonable person’s belief
that the person arrested has committed a crime. State v. Lantagne, 165 N.H.
774, 777 (2013). We review reasonable probabilities, not the amount of
evidence that would be required to sustain a conviction or to make out a prima
facie case. Id. We approach the issue with concern for the practical and
factual considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent people,
not legal technicians, act. Id.As the appealing party, Ford has the burden of demonstrating reversible
error. Gallo v. Traina, 166 N.H. 737, 740 (2014). Having reviewed the trial
court’s order and the evidence in the light most favorable to Ford as the
nonmoving party, we conclude that Ford has not established a genuine issue of
material fact, or that the trial court erred by determining that the municipal
defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Balise, 170 N.H.
at 523; Gallo, 166 N.H. at 740.
Affirmed.
MacDonald, C.J., and Hicks, Hantz Marconi, and Donovan, JJ., concurred.
Timothy A. Gudas,
Clerk
2