## Facts

- A Fort Collins police officer saw a dog running loose in alleged violation of a city leash ordinance and followed it to Elizabeth A. Enright’s residence.
- The officer spoke with Enright’s 11-year-old son, who identified the dog and indicated Enright was in a car at the curb.
- The officer approached Enright and demanded her driver’s license; Enright provided her name and address but declined to produce the license.
- The officer told Enright she must produce the license or go to jail; when she objected, he grabbed her arm and arrested her.
- Witnesses testified Enright cried out that the officer was hurting her and tried to pull away in front of her son.
- Enright was taken to the police station, booked, and later charged with violating the leash ordinance (not with failing to produce a driver’s license).
- Enright posted bail and was ultimately convicted of the leash-ordinance violation.
- Enright sued the officer and the City for false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and battery; a jury found for Enright and awarded actual and exemplary damages.
- The officer and City appealed, arguing the arrest was lawful, the conduct was not outrageous, and the damages were excessive.

## Issues

1. Whether the arrest was lawful where the officer arrested Enright for refusing to produce a driver’s license despite no ordinance requiring production in those circumstances.
2. Whether Enright’s later conviction for the leash-ordinance violation barred or defeated her false imprisonment claim.
3. Whether the officer’s conduct during the arrest supported liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
4. Whether the officer’s physical contact was privileged as incident to a lawful arrest or constituted battery.
5. Whether the actual and exemplary damages were excessive.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the judgment for Enright on false imprisonment, holding the arrest was unlawful because it was made for refusal to produce a driver’s license, which was not an offense under the applicable law.
- The court held Enright’s later conviction for the leash-ordinance violation did not bar her false imprisonment claim because the arrest was not made for that offense.
- The court affirmed the jury’s finding of intentional infliction of emotional distress based on the officer’s conduct in effecting the arrest.
- The court affirmed the battery verdict because force used to accomplish an unlawful arrest is not privileged.
- The court rejected the challenge to the compensatory and exemplary damages and affirmed the amounts awarded.

## Legal Principles

- False imprisonment/false arrest occurs when a person is taken into custody by an officer who claims authority but lacks proper legal authority (such as a valid warrant or probable cause tied to an offense that supports arrest).
- Probable cause and legal authority are evaluated based on the circumstances and basis for custody at the time of arrest, not by later charging decisions.
- Conviction of the offense for which a person was arrested may bar a false imprisonment claim, but a conviction for a different offense does not retroactively justify an arrest made for a non-offense.
- Physical contact that would otherwise be privileged as incident to arrest becomes unprivileged where the arrest is unlawful, supporting liability for battery.
- Extreme or abusive conduct in effecting an unlawful arrest may support liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a jury verdict holding an officer and municipality liable for false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and battery where the officer arrested a citizen for refusing to produce a driver’s license without legal basis; a later conviction for a separate leash-ordinance violation did not validate the arrest or bar civil recovery, and the damages awards were sustained.


Enright v. Groves, 39 Colo. App. 39, 560 P.2d 851 (Colo. Ct. App. 1977)