Cornell v. City & Cnty. of S.F.
17 Cal. App. 5th 766
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2017Background
- Bret Cornell, an off-duty police trainee, was seen resting at Hippie Hill in Golden Gate Park; two uniformed officers found him "worried" and suspicious because the area was known for drug activity.
- Officers attempted a consensual encounter but Cornell resumed running; officers chased him (backup summoned), one officer with gun drawn ultimately confronted and arrested him in AIDS Memorial Grove.
- Cornell claims he did not know he was being chased until an officer shouted "I will shoot you," and he fled in fear; he was handcuffed, searched (nothing incriminating found), taken to station, then hospital for drug test (negative), and released after ~6 hours.
- He received a Penal Code §148 citation (evading arrest); later discharged from his trainee position, which ended his law‑enforcement career.
- Cornell sued for false arrest, assault, negligence, tortious interference, and violation of Civil Code §52.1 (Bane Act); after bifurcated trial the court determined no probable cause, jury found for Cornell on tortious interference and §52.1, awarding damages and substantial attorney’s fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause / reasonable suspicion for detention and arrest | No reasonable suspicion or probable cause existed; arrest unlawful. | Officers had objective grounds (flight, nervousness, area reputation, jacket discarded) to suspect criminal activity and detain. | Court: No reasonable suspicion or probable cause; arrest unlawful as totality of facts did not tie Cornell to criminal activity. |
| Incomplete Phase I special verdict / mistrial | N/A (plaintiff benefited from court ruling) | Acceptance of verdict despite one unanswered question (whether Cornell fled on Hippie Hill) was reversible error and required mistrial. | Court: Any error was not prejudicial; unanswered question not material to probable‑cause conclusion; denial of mistrial not an abuse of discretion. |
| Statutory immunity under Penal Code §847(b) for false arrest | §847(b) does not change outcome; probable cause lacking so immunity fails. | §847(b) provides immunity when officer had "reasonable cause to believe" arrest was lawful; defendants urge this shields them (arguing parity with qualified immunity). | Court: §847(b) is coextensive with probable cause doctrine and does not import federal qualified immunity; no additional immunity applied. |
| Civil liability under Civil Code §52.1 (Bane Act) and attorney’s fees | Claim meets §52.1 because officers used threats/intimidation/coercion (gun‑pointing, baseless citation, conduct causing job loss), showing specific intent to violate rights. | §52.1 requires coercion independent of the coercion inherent in detention; mere unlawful arrest insufficient to support Bane Act. | Court: Where an unlawful arrest is proved, §52.1 requires specific intent to deprive rights; jury could infer specific intent/reckless disregard from gun‑pointing, baseless citation, and post‑arrest conduct; §52.1 verdict and fees affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (framework for probable‑cause timing and assessment)
- Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (probable cause as a practical, nontechnical conception)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (objective test for reasonableness; officer motivation irrelevant)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (reasonable, articulable suspicion justifies brief investigatory stop)
- Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (flight can contribute to reasonable suspicion under totality of circumstances)
- People v. Casares, 62 Cal.4th 808 (detention requires specific, articulable facts connecting person to criminal activity)
- Dragna v. White, 45 Cal.2d 469 (officer civil liability for arrest without warrant and without justification)
- Venegas v. County of Los Angeles, 32 Cal.4th 820 (construction of §52.1 and scope of remedies)
- Jones v. Kmart Corp., 17 Cal.4th 329 (Civil Code §52.1 enforces constitutional and statutory rights against interference)
- Shoyoye v. County of Los Angeles, 203 Cal.App.4th 947 (jail overdetention; §52.1 requires more than negligent or negligent overdetention)
- Bender v. County of Los Angeles, 217 Cal.App.4th 968 (excessive force in unlawful arrest can satisfy §52.1 coercion element)