Cornell v. City and County of San Francisco
A141016M
| Cal. Ct. App. | Nov 17, 2017Background
- Bret Cornell, an off-duty SFPD trainee, went for a run in Golden Gate Park, was observed on "Hippie Hill" by two uniformed officers who regarded the area as a narcotics hotspot, and resumed running after seeing them. Officers pursued him; a later encounter on a wooded trail ended with Cornell ordered to the ground at gunpoint, handcuffed, detained ~6 hours, drug-tested (negative), cited for PC §148, and later fired from the Police Department.
- Cornell sued the arresting officers, the chief, and the City for false arrest/false imprisonment, negligence, assault/battery, tortious interference with economic advantage, and violation of Cal. Civil Code §52.1 (the Bane Act).
- The trial was bifurcated: Phase I addressed assault and probable cause; the jury found no assault and produced mixed findings on factual questions bearing on reasonable suspicion/probable cause. The trial court ruled as a matter of law there was no reasonable suspicion and no probable cause; defense stipulated to negligence liability.
- Phase II: jury found liability on tortious interference and §52.1; damages awarded ~$575,231. Court awarded $2,027,612.75 in attorney’s fees under §52.1. Defendants appealed from judgment and fee award.
- Appellate court affirmed in full—holding (1) no reasonable suspicion/probable cause existed at the outset and therefore no lawful basis for detention or subsequent arrest; (2) accepting an incomplete Phase I verdict was not reversible error; (3) Penal Code §847(b) does not provide broader immunity than probable cause doctrine; (4) §52.1 verdict sustained because where unlawful arrest is proved, plaintiff need show officers acted with specific intent to violate rights (not an independent coercion separate from the arrest).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause / reasonable suspicion for detention and arrest | Cornell: officers lacked objective facts tying him to criminal activity; their pursuit and arrest were unlawful | Officers: area was high-crime, Cornell acted evasively (ran, shed jacket), and later flight on the trail justified detention/arrest | Held: No reasonable suspicion or probable cause at the outset; arrest unlawful under totality of circumstances. |
| Jury deadlock / incomplete Phase I special verdict | Cornell: trial court could accept partial verdict and resolve legal consequences | Officers: acceptance of verdict missing an answer on a material question (Q8) required mistrial | Held: No abuse of discretion in accepting incomplete verdict; unanswered question would not have altered outcome on reasonable suspicion. |
| Statutory immunity under Penal Code §847(b) | Cornell: §847(b) should not be read to import federal qualified immunity; officers have no extra statutory shield beyond probable cause analysis | Officers: §847(b) grants immunity if officer had "reasonable cause to believe" arrest lawful—argue for a broader, possibly subjective or qualified-immunity-like protection | Held: §847(b)(1) is coextensive with probable cause doctrine and does not import federal qualified immunity or provide broader protection. |
| Bane Act (Cal. Civil Code §52.1) liability standard | Cornell: unlawful arrest combined with threats (gun-pointing) and subsequent conduct established coercion and specific intent to violate rights under §52.1 | Officers: §52.1 requires coercion independent from coercion inherent in a detention; false arrest alone cannot sustain §52.1; Shoyoye controls | Held: Where an unlawful arrest is proved, §52.1 requires evidence that officers acted with specific intent to violate the arrestee’s right (Screws standard); here jury could reasonably find Brandt and Gin acted with that intent, so §52.1 and fee award affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (Fourth Amendment probable cause standard)
- Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (probable cause as a practical, nontechnical test)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (objective probable cause/reasonableness test)
- People v. Casares, 62 Cal.4th 808 (reasonable suspicion must tie person to criminal activity; area reputation insufficient alone)
- Dragna v. White, 45 Cal.2d 469 (officer civil liability for unlawful arrest; foundational for §847 context)
- Shoyoye v. County of Los Angeles, 203 Cal.App.4th 947 (jail overdetention: §52.1 requires more than negligence; discussion of "independent" coercion in overdetention context)
- Venegas v. County of Los Angeles, 32 Cal.4th 820 (interpretation of §52.1 scope; not limited to protected classes)
- Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91 (specific intent standard for rights-interference crimes; adopted as mens rea guide for §52.1 intent analysis)