Laserfiche WebLink
11. Prior to obtaining a warrant for plaintiff's arrest, <br /> defendant Armstrong sought advice from the District Attorney's <br /> Office as to the proper charge. <br /> 12. On December 28, 1982, 'defendant Armstrong obtained a <br /> warrant for plaintiff's arrest. Specifically, the warrant <br /> charged plaintiff with obtaining money and property by false <br /> pretenses in violation of N.C.Gen.Stat. ~ 14-100. See <br /> (Plaintiff's Exhibit ~ 1). <br /> <br /> 13. On May 30, 1983, defendant Armstrong served the warrant <br /> <br /> on plaintiff and arrested him. <br /> <br /> CONCLUSIONS OF LAW <br /> <br /> 1. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction of this <br /> <br /> dispute and personal jurisdiction over the parties. <br /> <br /> 2. Defendant Armstrong had probable cause to believe that <br />plaintiff committed the felony of obtaining mouey by false <br />pretenses by creating the identity of a "business" calculated to <br />engender confidence in the inherent worth of the check. State <br />v. Freeman, 308 N.C. 502, __, 302 S.E.2d 779, 785 (1983). In <br />this case, probable cause existed from all the evidence available <br />to defendant Armstrong on December 29, 1982 that plaintiff <br />represented that the maker of the check was a legitimate business <br />while in fact it was not. State v. Freeman, __ N.C.App. __, <br />__, 339 S.E.2d 56, 61 (1986). Consequently, defendant <br />Armstrong's arrest of plaintiff and charging him with a felony <br />under N.C.Gen. Stat. § 14-100 comported with the fourth amendment. <br /> <br /> 3. Therefore, plaintiff has failed to establish the <br />essential e~emen~ of bis claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that <br />defendant Armstrong violated or deprived him of his <br /> <br />constitutional or statutory rights. Accordingly, a judgment will <br />be entered in favor of defendants. <br /> <br /> 6 <br /> <br /> <br />