Malicious prosecution claim is dismissed because court rules officers did not lack probable cause
When the plaintiff flashed his headlights at an oncoming car because it refused to dim its lights, he got an unexpected surprise. The car turned to follow him and ultimately pulled him over, apparently. The officer claimed that the plaintiff had blood shot eyes and smelled of alcohol and arrested him for Operating Under the Influence of Liquor. The plaintiff ultimately proved that he was not OUIL and then sued the arresting officer for malicious prosecution. The Court held that since there was objective evidence to support the claim that the plaintiff had been drinking, which he initially denied, there was adequate grounds for the arrest and therefore no malicious prosecution. The case was dismissed. It was entitled Small v. Chirco.