26 Cal.App.5th 71
Cal. Ct. App.2018Background
- On Jan. 19, 2016, Santa Cruz officers attempted to cite a man (Johnson); Andrew Williams stood between the officer (Brouillette) and Johnson, refused repeated orders to sit or remove his hand from his pocket, and ignored warnings about arrest for resisting/obstructing.
- Officers attempted to handcuff Williams, took him to the ground after he braced and kept his hand in his pocket, and used escalating force (punches, knee to face, pressure points, shackles, wrap, spit mask) before transport and jail booking.
- Williams was charged under Penal Code §148(a)(1) for willfully resisting, delaying, or obstructing peace officers; the jury was instructed on lawfulness of police conduct and special rules on excessive force.
- During deliberations the jury asked whether excessive force used after a §148(a)(1) violation would “invalidate” that violation; the trial court answered “NO.” The jury convicted Williams.
- The appellate division reversed in a 2–1 decision, finding the trial court’s answer erroneous; the case was transferred to the Court of Appeal, which affirmed the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers’ subsequent use of excessive force invalidates a completed §148(a)(1) violation | The People: a completed §148(a)(1) offense committed while an officer is lawfully performing duties remains valid even if the officer later uses excessive force | Williams: any excessive force during an evolving encounter renders the officer’s actions unlawful and thus negates the §148(a)(1) conviction | Held: No. If the officer was acting lawfully at the time the defendant committed the §148(a)(1) offense, later excessive force does not invalidate that completed offense |
| Whether instructing the jury that stepping in front of an officer writing a citation could constitute §148(a)(1) was erroneous | The People: Williams’ conduct (stood between officer and person being cited and ignored orders) could reasonably be found to delay/obstruct | Williams: merely standing did not physically prevent the citation and was passive, so it could not support §148 liability | Held: No error. A reasonable jury could find his conduct delayed/obstructed the officer and presented safety concerns, supporting §148 liability |
Key Cases Cited
- White v. Superior Court, 101 Cal.App.3d 161 (Cal. Ct. App.) (instructional error where jury not told excessive force makes arrest unlawful)
- Yount v. City of Sacramento, 43 Cal.4th 885 (Cal. 2008) (Heck analysis; dicta recognizing that subsequent excessive force need not negate prior lawful arrest/resistance)
- Olguin v. Superior Court, 119 Cal.App.3d 39 (Cal. Ct. App.) (instructional error for failing to instruct that excessive force places officer outside lawful performance)
- Manuel G. v. Superior Court, 16 Cal.4th 805 (Cal. 1997) (lawfulness of officer’s conduct is essential element of §148 crime; lawfulness assessed at time offense committed)
- Sanford v. Motts, 258 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir.) (post-arrest excessive force does not negate lawfulness of earlier conduct supporting conviction)
- Smith v. City of Hemet, 394 F.3d 689 (9th Cir.) (conviction based on pre-arrest conduct need not be invalidated by later excessive force)
- Hooper v. County of San Diego, 629 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir.) (Heck does not bar §1983 excessive-force claim when conviction and force claim rest on different actions in one transaction)
- Wetzel v. United States, 11 Cal.3d 104 (Cal. 1974) (passive assertion of constitutional right cannot constitute §148 liability)