Svensen v. Hester, [Ms. SC-2023-0680, May 17, 2024] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2024). The Court (Mitchell, J.; Parker, C.J., concurs; Shaw, Bryan, and Mendheim, JJ., concur in the result) affirms the Lauderdale Circuit Court’s summary judgment dismissing John Svensen’s claim for malicious prosecution against Jeff Hester.
Svensen wrote Hester a check for several thousand bottles of hand sanitizer. The check bounced. On the advice of a Lieutenant with the Lauderdale County District Attorney’s Office, Hester signed an affidavit on a criminal complaint form against Svensen. After realizing the charges were time-barred, the State ultimately dismissed the charges against Hester.
In affirming the summary judgment, the Court holds:
Probable cause is a “ ‘ “reasonable ground for suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man in the belief that the person accused is guilty of the offense charged.” ’ ” Eidson v. Olin Corp., 527 So. 2d 1283, 1285 (Ala. 1988) (quoting Parisian Co. v. Williams, 203 Ala. 378, 383, 83 So. 122, 127 (1919)). In other words, a person acts with probable cause if he could have reasonably believed that the accused committed the charged crime. There is no genuine issue of material fact here; Hester had probable cause to believe that Svensen had committed the crime of negotiating a worthless negotiable instrument.
Ms. *6.
The Court rejects Hester’s argument that Svensen’s knowledge that the statute of limitations had expired evidenced a lack of probable cause. The Court reiterates “ ‘expiration of the limitations period has nothing to do with whether the defendant actually committed the offense charged. That is why the timeliness of an action does not bear on whether a cautious man would believe that the person accused is guilty of the offense charged.’ ” Ms. *8, quoting Eidson, supra, 527 So. 2d at 1285 (some internal quotation marks omitted).