Erris Edgerly v. City and County of San Francis, 713 F.3d 976

Edgerly was arrested for trespass (an infraction under Cal. Penal Code § 602.8) by San Francisco officers at a playground; he was pat-searched, then cited and released instead of being prosecuted.
The district court granted judgment as a matter of law on Edgerly’s false arrest claim, ruling officers had probable cause under § 602(l) or § 602.8.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit held § 602.8; the officers lacked authority for custodial arrest because the first offense under § 602.8 is an infraction and custodial arrest may occur only under § 853.5(a) conditions.
The court held § 853.5(a) governs infraction custodial arrest and incorporates misdemeanor release procedures but not the grounds for nonrelease found in § 853.6(i).
This prompted remand for state-law proceedings; Edgerly’s state-law false arrest claim may be vacated or judgment entered for him depending on liability, while unlawful-search claims may stand.
On remand, the district court considered whether § 853.6(i) applies to infractions and submitted three grounds from § 853.6(i) to the jury; the jury found those grounds supported nonrelease.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §853.5(a) provides exclusive grounds for custodial arrest of infractions.	Edgerly argues §853.5(a) excludes §853.6(i) as to infractions.	City contends §853.5(a) incorporates all §853.6 grounds, including §853.6(i).	§853.5(a) provides exclusive grounds for infractions.
Whether §853.5(a) incorporates §853.6(i)’s nonrelease grounds for infractions.	Edgerly contends §853.6(i) does not apply to infractions.	City argues §853.6(i) applies to infractions via §853.5(a).	§853.6(i)’s nonrelease grounds do not apply to infractions.

In re Rottanak K., 43 Cal. Rptr. 2d 543 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) (infraction release procedures; custodial arrest limited; supports Edgerly)
People v. Williams, 5 Cal. Rptr. 2d 59 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992) (infraction release; §853.5 and §853.6(a) controls; no §853.6(i) mentioned)
People v. Arnold, 132 Cal. Rptr. 922 (Cal. App. Dep’t Super. Ct. 1976) (conflicted pars; treated as supporting broader application of §853.6(i))
Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 629 F.3d 876 (9th Cir. 2010) (predicts California appellate approaches when controlling state law is absent)
Martinez v. Combs, 231 P.3d 259 (Cal. 2010) (statutory interpretation; ordinary meaning governs)