In Simmons v. Superior Court (City of San Diego), ordered published January 25, 2017, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division 1, issued a writ reversing summary adjudication granted on the plaintiff's Bane Act (Civil Code section 52.1) claim. The plaintiff was in a park after hours. When police approached, he fled. There was evidence he did not have a proper light on his bicycle. After officers detained him, they found drugs in his coin pocket. The plaintiff alleged that the officers pulled his underwear into a "wedgie" and conducted nonconsensual body cavity searches of the plaintiff. The officers denied they did so. The trial court granted summary adjudication to the officers and city on the Bane Act claim, concluding that the officers had probable cause to arrest him. The trial court did not mention the cavity search.
The appellate court concluded that even if the officers had probable cause to arrest the plaintiff, the physical nonconsensual body cavity searches the officers allegedly conducted were intentional conduct, separate and apart from a lawful arrest, that could provide the basis for a Bane Act claim. Although the defendants contended an officer's body camera footage showed that no cavity search took place, the court found the footage inconclusive on that subject. The trial court erred in granting summary adjudication in light of the conflicting evidence.
Comments