In Kerkeles v. City of San Jose, published October 4, 2011, the Sixth District Court of Appeal reversed summary judgment and judgment on the pleadings granted to a city and one of its police officers in a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 case. The plaintiff was arrested on charges of rape. The police officer fabricated a lab report of findings by a fictitious technician corroborating the victim's account. The officer intended to use the report as a ruse in interrogating the plaintiff. Because the plaintiff invoked Miranda rights, the officer did not use the report. The officer gave the prosecutor the report, along with the rest of the file; and the prosecutor used the report in prosecuting the plaintiff, with the officer testifying to the results of the ruse report in the preliminary hearing. The prosecutor declined to allow the defense attorney to see the data underlying the ruse report. When the defense discovered the ruse report, the prosecutor dismissed the charges.
The appellate court ruled that the use of the ruse report and the officer's testimony based on it may have violated the plaintiff's substantive due process and liberty rights, even though he was only briefly incarcerated and was not convicted. The bringing and prosecution of the charges caused injury even absent incarceration or conviction. The questions about whether the report and testimony was a substantial factor in the prosecution, whether the officer testified according to the ruse report deliberately or accidentally, whether probable cause existed for the prosecution without the ruse report, defeated summary judgment. Further, the lack of evidence negating the plaintiff's contention that the city failed to train officers concerning use of ruse reports defeated summary judgment on the municipal liability claim. Finally, the trial court should have allowed the plaintiff to amend the complaint to allege a conspiracy between the officer and the prosecutor.