May 29, 2026, 5:08 a.m. ETA Providence man is suing the Cranston Police Department and others after he was wrongfully arrested for shoplifting.The man, Ramon Checo Hilario, was detained by immigration authorities for 56 days after the arrest.His lawsuit alleges false arrest, negligence, and malicious prosecution, citing a flawed investigation.A Providence man who was detained for 56 days by immigration authorities after being arrested on shoplifting charges – which were later dismissed – is suing the Cranston Police Department over the ordeal.Ramon Checo Hilario sued the City of Cranston, an unnamed officer and the Police Department itself, as well as Sunglass Hut Trading and its employee over his February arrest on shoplifting charges. Hilario is alleging negligence and false arrest in his lawsuit.Hilario was taken into custody by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents as he exited the Kent County courthouse after his arraignment on Feb. 26 “for a crime he didn’t commit” and held for 56 days in Plymouth, Massachusetts, his lawyer, Robert Testa, said. “The charge was dismissed, but he spent 56 days pending deportation,” Testa said, adding that the affidavit for his arrest warrant and surveillance images “speak for themselves.” Hilario, who has a clean record in Rhode Island and is not a U.S. citizen, has since been released on bond, Testa said.What the police report allegesAccording to a police affidavit, a Sunglass Hut employee reported Jan. 27 that a suspicious man had entered the Garden City store that afternoon and stolen 10 pairs of sunglasses worth a total of $3,800. The employee told the Cranston police officer that the man fled in a gold Toyota Camry and gave him the Rhode Island license plate number.At the time, Hilario was working as an Uber delivery driver around Garden City Center.The officer – who is not identified in the lawsuit – ran the plate and discovered that the car was registered to Hilario and “positively identified” him as the suspect after comparing the surveillance image with the license photograph.“Despite substantial and obvious differences between the appearance of the individual depicted in the surveillance footage and [Hilario], Officer Doe concluded that plaintiff had been 'positively identified' as the suspect,” Hilario’s complaint says.The lawsuit charges that the officer failed to conduct a competent investigation, use reasonable investigative methods that would have exonerated Hilario and “ignored readily observable discrepancies.” Hilario alleges that the officer failed to adequately compare the men before seeking an arrest warrant.Nonetheless, Hilario was arrested and prosecuted, only to be held by ICE until late April, the suit says. During his detention, Hilario endured severe emotional trauma, humiliation, anxiety, stress and anguish, according to the lawsuit.The case was dismissed by a prosecutor in Cranston “in the interest of justice,” Testa said.Cranston Police Chief Michael Winquist declined comment because the matter is in litigation.Defamation, negligence allegationsHilario argues that all the defendants were negligent in that they failed to exercise reasonable care in investigating alleged criminal activity and identifying suspects. Supervisors in Cranston and at the retail store failed to properly train and supervise their employees, the lawsuit alleges.That negligence, he said, caused his detention by ICE and led to emotional distress, lost income and other damages. In addition, Cranston stands accused of false arrest, negligent supervision and violating Hilario’s civil rights. Hilario alleges that the Sunglass Hut employee and Sunglass Hut Trading, as well as the Cranston parties, engaged in maliciously prosecuting him and negligently inflicting emotional distress. Sunglass Hut and the employee face an additional claim of defamation that subjected him to public contempt, humiliation, disgrace and economic losses.“Defendants acted with reckless indifference to the rights, liberty, reputation and constitutional protections” of Hilario, the complaint says. He is seeking unspecified punitive and compensatory damages.