Andrews v. City and County of San Francisco
| Decision Date | 02 November 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. A038644,A038644 |
| Citation | 252 Cal.Rptr. 716,205 Cal.App.3d 938 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Harry ANDREWS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO et al., Defendants and Respondents. |
Paul J. Matzger, Frances H. Yoshimura, Leland, Parachini, Steinberg, Flinn, Matzger & Melnick, San Francisco, for plaintiff and appellant.
Louise H. Renne, City Atty., Kimberly A. Reiley, Chief Trial Deputy, G. Scott Emblidge, Deputy City Atty., San Francisco, for defendants and respondents.
*
This is an appeal by plaintiff Harry Andrews from a judgment in favor of defendant and respondent the City and County of San Francisco (City) and one of its police officers after a jury verdict exonerating the defendants in plaintiff's action for wrongful arrest, false imprisonment, assault and battery, and other causes of action. We find that the trial court erred in keeping from the jury all evidence of prior and subsequent assaultive conduct on the part of the booking officer, and will therefore reverse the judgment.
On the evening of March 2, 1983, the Queen of England was dining at Trader Vic's, a well-known San Francisco restaurant. Due to the presence of demonstrators near the restaurant, the San Francisco police (SFPD) cordoned off several intersections in the vicinity. Plaintiff was the owner of the Andrews Hotel at 640 Post Street; the hotel's back entrance adjoins Agate Alley which runs near the restaurant. Agate was not barricaded, so plaintiff parked his car there. However, when one of Trader Vic's parking lot attendants ordered plaintiff to move his car, he reparked it in Shannon Alley. Plaintiff exited the vehicle with his friend Becky Stephens and walked up Agate alley. However, they were stopped by a police officer who told them they could not pass through. Plaintiff protested that he owned the building on Post Street and desired to enter the rear entrance. What took place from that point on was subject to sharply conflicting testimony:
According to plaintiff, he was confronted by Captain Shippy, who asked him for identification. Plaintiff showed him the keys to the entrance, whereupon Shippy said "Let him pass." Plaintiff then asked Shippy to tell his officer to step aside so he could pass; Captain Shippy responded, Several officers pounced on plaintiff and officer Woods handcuffed him. The handcuffs cut off plaintiff's circulation, but his repeated requests to have them loosened were ignored. Woods then pushed plaintiff into a paddy wagon; without the use of his arms, plaintiff fell headlong against the steel floor.
Plaintiff was then driven around in the paddy wagon for about an hour. One of the officers in charge was Officer Ramirez. After arriving at the police station, plaintiff was led from the paddy wagon and handed in his valuables. When he handed Ramirez his jacket, Ramirez proceeded to drop it on the floor. Ramirez then told plaintiff to take off his shoes. As plaintiff bent down to do so, Ramirez jumped on top of him and forced him to the ground. During the next one to two minutes, Ramirez slammed plaintiff's head against the concrete floor approximately 20 to 30 times.
The SFPD's version of the events was quite a bit different. Officer Woods testified that plaintiff, intoxicated and unruly, refused to obey his directive not to enter the alley. When asked for identification, plaintiff cursed, brought his hand around from his back pocket and grabbed Woods' baton. Within seconds, officers handcuffed plaintiff; he kept struggling to work free of the cuffs while cursing the officers profusely. Ramirez confirmed plaintiff's drunken behavior and appearance; 1 he also testified that because plaintiff refused his polite requests to enter the van voluntarily, he was pushed in. As he entered, plaintiff tripped over the second step and fell to the back of the van. At the police station, plaintiff continued to be hostile and uncooperative. At one point plaintiff's jacket, which had been taken off and placed on the counter, accidentally slipped to the ground. When plaintiff demanded that Ramirez pick up the jacket Ramirez refused, fearing the potential for an assault. This enraged plaintiff so much that he "took a swing" at Ramirez with his clenched fist. Ramirez responded by wrestling plaintiff to the ground and subduing him. Ramirez conceded that plaintiff "may have hit his head" when he fell to the ground. Finally, Ramirez placed plaintiff in an armlock and escorted him to his cell.
Plaintiff filed an action against the City and six SFPD officers for false arrest and imprisonment, assault and battery, negligence and violation of the Civil Rights Act. The case was tried to a jury. At the commencement of trial the parties stipulated that if any of the officers was found individually liable, the City would be vicariously liable. Accordingly, plaintiff dismissed his complaint as to all of the individual officers except Ramirez.
As will be set forth in more detail, infra, the City successfully prevented plaintiff from bringing before the jury evidence of six separate incidents of allegedly violent and abusive behavior on the part of Officer Ramirez, four of which took place prior and two subsequent to the subject incident. Before the case went to the jury, plaintiff dismissed his negligent hiring and supervision claim against the City. The jury returned with a special verdict in favor of the defendants. Plaintiff appeals from the ensuing judgment.
Prior to trial the City brought a motion in limine to preclude any evidence of citizen complaints against Officer Ramirez appearing in his personnel file, which plaintiff had obtained through pretrial discovery. The six incidents are briefly summarized as follows:
Baumgartner and Souza: On June 21, 1982, Messrs. Baumgartner and Souza were driving on the Central freeway in San Francisco when they were rear ended by a Datsun. When they turned to see what happened, they observed the driver, later identified as Ramirez, pointing a six inch chrome revolver at them.
Fish: In December 1982, Ramirez arrested George Fish for drunkenness, despite Fish's protestation that he was not inebriated. Fish alleges he was beaten while being placed in the squad car.
Forbes: Complainant Forbes was arrested on January 31, 1983 on a traffic warrant. Forbes alleged that while he was in custody at the police station Ramirez, for no apparent reason, took off his handcuffs and challenged him to fight. When Forbes did not accept the invitation, Ramirez struck him with his fists and pulled his hair. Later Ramirez came into the booking room and punched Forbes in the mouth.
Belbin: On February 19, 1983, Charles Belbin was taken into custody while being arrested for drunkenness. Belbin, who admitted that he had been drinking but denied resisting arrest, claimed that Officer Ramirez used excessive force and deliberately broke his right arm while handcuffing him. Ramirez' version was that the arm broke when Belbin jerked it away while he resisted being handcuffed; Ramirez denied intentionally breaking Belbin's arm. Belbin was taken by ambulance to the hospital as a result of this injury.
Plaintiff's arrest occurred in March of 1983.
Palladino: On July 27, 1983, Nicholas Palladino was arrested for drunkenness. While he was standing, handcuffed, in the booking area, Ramirez came up to him and said "So you want to hit a cop?" whereupon the officer proceeded to strike Palladino and kick him in the ribs.
Gibbs: Ms. Gibbs testified that on September 3, 1983, she met Ramirez in a bar and walked him to another. Ramirez, who was off duty and highly inebriated, asked her to go dancing, but she refused. Later, she gave him a ride to his car. She asked him five or six times to get out of her car, but Ramirez refused. Finally, for no apparent reason, he cursed her and struck her in the face, cutting her mouth. 2
The court granted the City's pretrial motion to exclude all evidence of these incidents, without prejudice to renew. The court also stated that if Ramirez or one of the defense witnesses were to "open Pandora's box," it would allow "everything" to go in.
During his direct examination, Ramirez was asked about his feelings toward plaintiff during the booking, and the following exchange took place: [RAMIREZ]: (Emphasis added.)
On cross-examination, plaintiff's attorney developed the concept further:
Armed with this testimony, plaintiff's attorney argued in chambers that Pandora's box had indeed been opened and that the complaints of violent and abusive behavior by Ramirez should be admitted to impeach him. The court was nevertheless unpersuaded and refused to change its prior ruling. Plaintiff now contends the court's refusal to admit the misconduct evidence was reversible error.
Three primary questions are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Briley v. City of W. Covina
...the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's exclusion of evidence of other bad acts. (See Andrews v. City and County of San Francisco (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 938, 947, 252 Cal.Rptr. 716.) The City suggests the contested testimony was unduly prejudicial because the time limits the trial cou......
-
People v. Sanders
...245 Cal.Rptr. 336, 751 P.2d 395; People v. Beamon (1973) 8 Cal.3d 625, 632, 105 Cal.Rptr. 681, 504 P.2d 905; Andrews v. San Francisco (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 938, 252 Cal.Rptr. 716.)4 All evidence in the case proves there was one shooter and one shooter only. If Xavier admits as he did that h......
-
Loth v. Truck-A-Way Corp.
...would have been reached absent the error. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 13; Code Civ. Proc., § 475.)" (Andrews v. City and County of San Francisco (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 938, 948, 252 Cal.Rptr. 716.) If so, reversal is required. (Daly v. General Motors Corp. (1978) 20 Cal.3d 725, 746, 144 Cal.Rpt......
-
People v. Jones, A113678 (Cal. App. 7/19/2007), A113678
...of otherwise inadmissible evidence of prior misconduct for the purpose of contradicting such testimony." (Andrews v. City and County of San Francisco (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 938, 946.) The "defense choice of strategy often makes admissible in rebuttal certain evidence which would not be admis......
-
Character and habit
...evidence of the witness’ conduct inconsistent with the avowed character trait. Andrews v. City and County of San Francisco (1988) 205 Cal. App. 3d 938, 945-947, 252 Cal. Rptr. 716. Admissibility When Character Is Issue. When character evidence is an ultimate fact in dispute, any otherwise a......
-
Table of cases
...People v. (2019) 42 Cal. App. 5th 780, 255 Cal. Rptr. 3d 769, §§7:70, 11:10 Andrews v. City and County of San Francisco (1988) 205 Cal. App. 3d 938, 252 Cal. Rptr. 716, §11:10 Andrews v. County of Orange (1982) 130 Cal. App. 3d 944, 182 Cal. Rptr. 176, §12:100 Andrews, People v. (1989) 49 C......
-
Table of Cases null
...463, 96 S. Ct. 2737, 49 L. Ed. 2d 627 (1976)—Ch. 4-C, §3.2.3(1); Ch. 5-A, §2.2.1(1)(c)[1] Andrews v. City and County of San Francisco, 205 Cal. App. 3d 938, 252 Cal. Rptr. 716 (1st Dist. 1988)—Ch. 6, §2.2.2(1)(a) Animal Science Products, Inc. v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., 138 S.......
-
Chapter 6 - §2. Balancing test
...discretion to exclude the evidence on the basis of undue consumption of time. See, e.g., Andrews v. City & Cty. of S.F. (1st Dist.1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 938, 947 (court abused its discretion when it excluded impeachment evidence to avoid time-consuming minitrials; witness's truthfulness and c......