Law v. City of Eunice, 653 So. 2d 149 (La. Ct. App. 1995)

Cases | Law v. City of Eunice, 653 So. 2d 149 (La. Ct. App. 1995) | 2018

The plaintiff and his accomplice were charged with commission of an aggravated burglary. Subsequently, they contacted a police officer to inquire whether the victim would be willing to have the charges dropped if they made restitution. Though the victim accepted restitution and by affidavit stated that he no longer wished to prosecute the matter, the district attorney’s office chose to prosecute the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged based on a theory of detrimental reliance that he relied on the police officer’s statements that he would not be prosecuted for burglary if he made restitution. The appellate court found that: (1) the trial court correctly concluded that the agreement described by the plaintiff was not made, and the plaintiff therefore failed to meet the first requirement of proof for detrimental reliance; (2) the plaintiff failed to prove his damages by a preponderance of the evidence because in paying restitution he was merely acknowledging a natural obligation that he owed; and (3) the officer had no actual authority to bind the district attorney, and the court was not prepared to extend “apparent authority” to a police officer not associated with the district attorney’s office.