You are on page 1of 3

section520.

org

Prima facie, the law presumes that the defendant is innocent of crime or wrong.
Going v. Dinwiddie (1890), 86 Cal. 633
“...one who interferes with another's liberty does so at his peril”.
Knight v. Baker (1926), 117 Ore. 492
When the plaintiff has shown that he was arrested, imprisoned or restrained of his liberty by
the defendant, "the law presumes it to be unlawful."
People v. McGrew (1888), 77 Cal. 570
Defendant makes a prima facie case of unlawful arrest when he establishes that arrest was
made without a warrant, and burden rests on prosecution to show proper justification.
People v. Holguin (1956) 145 Cal.App.2d. 520
False imprisonment is treated as a tort, and also as a crime..... If the conduct is unlawful,
neither good faith, nor provocation, nor ignorance of the law is a defense to the person
committing the wrong.
Kroger v. Passmore (1908), 36 Mont. 504, 93 Pac. 805
...traffic stops are technically “arrests”...
"Investigative Detentions", Spring 2010 POINT OF VIEW, ALAMEDA COUNTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE. P. 1
A traffic arrest occurs when an officer stops a vehicle after seeing the driver commit an
infraction. ...the purpose of the stop is to enforce the law, not conduct an investigation.
“Arrests”, Spring 2009, POINT OF VIEW, ALAMEDA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, p. 1
Reasonable suspicion requires “ ‘a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the
particular person stopped of criminal activity.’ ” Twilley, 222 F.3d at 1095 (quoting United
States v. Thomas, 211 F.3d 1186, 1189 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted)).
UNITED STATES of America, v. Maurice Lashaw KING (2001), No. 00-30113, United States
Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Turning to the applicable legal standards for a traffic stop and detention, this court in People v.
Podesto (1976) 62 Cal.App.3d 708 [133 Cal.Rptr. 409] recently summarized the frequently
stated rules as follows: [1] "It is well established that circumstances short of probable cause to
make an arrest may warrant a temporary detention for purposes of investigating possible
criminal activity. (Terry v. Ohio (1968) 392 U.S. 1, 22 [20 L.Ed.2d 889, 906-907, 88 S.Ct. 1868,
1880].) Before such a detention may be undertaken, however, there must be a rational
suspicion that something out of the ordinary has taken place, that the activity is related to a
crime, and that the person detained is connected to the activity. (Irwin v. Superior Court (1969)
Page 1 of 3

3d 423. cf. 1.' (People v.Rptr.. Hunt (1967) 250 Cal.) A mere hunch or subjective suspicion will not justify a temporary detention. Plaintiff-Appellee. acting in his discretionary capacity. to arrest a particular individual.. 2000) Even if the officer is not expected to know the law of all 50 states. 462 P. An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity when. 161].3d 1283 (11th Cir.2d 800].App. one in favor of natural right. Superior Court (Acosta) (1971) 20 Cal. Perez (1966) 243 Cal. 988 [61 Cal.Rptr.App.2d 653.2d 92. . When a statute or instrument is equally susceptible of two interpretations. 1 Cal. 484. supra. v.2d 311. LEE. Rugg.App.Rptr.2d 528.3d at p. the former is to be adopted. Evans (1977).section520.Rptr. 690]. Moore (1968) 69 Cal. Julian C. reasonably warrant that intrusion. 314-315 [58 Cal. 545]. People v. a detention based on those events is unlawful.Rptr.3d 944. 1868. 221 F. 950 [112 Cal..Rptr. he violates clearly established constitutional or federal law of which a reasonable person would have known.org 1 Cal.App. JESUS SANTOS SANCHEZ REYES. Robles (1972) 28 Cal. 744 [104 Cal. 531 [52 Cal.S. (See Irwin v. 1880]. Higbee (1974) 37 Cal. (2011) 196 Cal. 426. People v. United S tates of America.) The test in determining the validity of a temporary detention is to inquire whether the circumstances 'are such as to indicate to a reasonable man in a like position that such a course is necessary to the proper discharge of the officer's duties. People v.Rptr. 88 S.4th 856 Every officer knows. that he needs a warrant which correctly identifies the arrestee. 716-717. Superior Court.Rptr.) And it must be added that the detaining officers must be able to point to "specific and articulable facts which. where the events are as consistent with innocent activity as with criminal activity. is insufficient.) The circumstances must be such as to distinguish the activity of the detained person from that of any other citizen and must be based on an objective perception of events rather than the subjective feelings of the officers.2d 12].2d 674.3d 932] People v. unless there is some suggestion that it is related to criminality..Ct. 800. supra.App. 683 [72 Cal.2d 986.. 1088 [98 Cal. Manis (1969) 268 Cal. 396 P. 290. 95-96 [41 Cal. (People v. taken together with rational inferences from those facts.)" (62 Cal.App.App. People v. 514]. 1 Cal.3d at p." (Terry v. 427.2d 706].App. (Irwin v. 446 P. or should know. surely he is expected to know the California Vehicle Code. or probable cause. (People v.2d 889.) [65 Cal.) Moreover. Jake GREGORY. Page 2 of 3 . Ohio (1968) 392 U. 907].3d 1085.App. One 1960 Cadillac Coupe (1964) 62 Cal. 660 [74 Cal. and the other against it.App. THE PEOPLE v. Superior Court.3d 739. 423].3d at pp. Koch v.Rptr. People v.Ed.App. 21 [20 L. 65 Cal. 385].) Unusual activity alone. Henze (1967) 253 Cal. People v.3d 924 CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1866. 906.Rptr. 427 [82 Cal.

(1971). Troy Hanson. 00-15840. State Dept. Plaintiff-Appellee. Esq. (1924) Escobedo v. and for malfeasance in office is in his 'individual'. It is clear that the police did not have probable cause to arrest Nicholas at the time they stationed themselves on either side of his automobile.. 3. v. Jur. Town Of Scandia Valley. Jr. misfeasance. 50.. of Motor Vehicles.." 70 Am. and that right was clearly established and would be known to a reasonable officer in the circumstances. Defendant (2004).. United States Court of Appeals. 448 F. Kenny Moore. No.section520. v. 218. STEVENS. and must keep within the law at his peril. that are affected or impacted when a peace or law enforcement officer “stops” us: 1. Defendants. 65 Cal. Whyte v. 2nd Sec.2d 622.the police officers acted beyond the scope of their constitutional authority in detaining Nicholas for questioning..org Defendants-Appellants. not his official capacity. App. UNITED STATES of America. Eighth Circuit ". United States Court of Appeals.. Scott ROSE. Keith K. 4.. 02-57132. Ninth Circuit Here’s but a small list of some of our CLEARLY ESTABLISHED CONSTITUTIONALLY SECURED rights secured by the 4th Amendment and its State counterpart. Freedom from arbitrary state interference Free Passage Autonomous self-positioning (going where you want) Autonomous other-encountering (interacting with who you want) Privacy It is settled that the streets of a city belong to the people of a state and the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen of the state. 534. As is the case of illegal arrests.an officer may be held liable in damages to any person injured in consequence of a breach of any of the duties connected with his office. 2. The Federal Bureau of Investigation. 5. Thiede v.. 217 Minn. City of Sacramento. George Willie NICHOLAS. the officer is bound to know these fundamental rights and privileges. The liability for nonfeasance. Defendant-Appellant (2002) No. 231 (1944) . County of Lander.. US 9 th Cir. 547. 35 Cal.2d 870 (1950) The facts alleged show that Hanson violated Stevens' right not to be arrested in the absence of probable cause to believe Stevens had committed a crime. VII Civil Liability Page 3 of 3 .