Government Liability Update

Officer Has Probable Cause to Arrest Teacher Based on Interview of 10-Year Old Student

In John v. Youngquist, the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court order denying an officer summary judgment against a 42 USC section 1983 suit brought by a fifth-grade teacher whom the officer arrested.  A 10-year-old student of the teacher told the officer the teacher had molested her.  The officer arrested the teacher in her school, and led her away in handcuffs.  She was released 36 hours later when the DA declined to prosecute her.

The district court declined summary judgment on the grounds of probable cause and qualified immunity.  Because of the qualified immunity ground, the officer was entitled to appeal the denial.

The Ninth Circuit found the officer had probable cause to arrest the teacher.  The judges opined that the officer likely acted with unnecessary haste in arresting the teacher, particularly in such a dramatic fashion.  But it found that the 10-year-old's statements during the interview, combined with the officer's training and expertise in determining the veracity of child accusers, could have led a reasonable officer to  believe the teacher had committed an offense against the student.

Ninth Circuit Discusses Circumstances Permitting Police Use of Force During Traffic Stops

In Winterrowd v. Nelson, the Ninth Circuit ruled that Alaskan police were not entitled to qualified immunity for allegedly slamming the plaintiff against the hood of his car, and yanking an arm he contended was injured up and down, after pulling him over for improper license plates.  (Solely for purposes of reviewing summary judgment based on qualified immunity , the plaintiff's version of facts was adopted by the court.)  Neither the plaintiff's purported belligerance; his calling the police "jackbooted thugs" and "cowards"; his asserted belief that he did not have to register his truck with the state; or his multiple pens and pencils on his person justified the use of force, according to the court.

Important New Case on Investigation and Prosecution Immunity

Gillan v. City of San Marino (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 1033 is the culmination of a line of cases holding that Goverment Code section 821.6 immunizes public employees (and vicariously their employers) from liability for statements to the press in the course of or concerning investigations.

In Gillan, city police arrested a high school coach on suspicion of misconduct concerning one of his players.  They released him soon after arrest.  They then held a press conference, announced the arrest, and put a call out for any information concerning possible additional victims.  When the district attorney eventually decided not to prosecute the coach, he sued the city and the officers involved for violation of the Bane Act (CC 52.1) for arrest without probable cause.  He also sued them for defamation and infliction of emotional distress arising out of the press conference.  The trial court found no probable cause for the arrest.  It allowed the defamation and IIED counts to go to the jury, which awarded substantial damages.

The appellate court agreed that the arrest lacked probable cause.  But it reversed the defamation and IIED portions of the judgment.  It held that under Government Code section 821.6, the officers and city were immune from liability for the statements to the press, which were part of and about the investigation.  Although the statements arose out of the arrest, the court ruled, whether the arrest was proper was irrelevant to the immunity.  It remanded the case for retrial of damages on the false arrest count alone.

We represent the defendants as appellate counsel in this case.