Dragna v. White

• Citation: 289 P.2d 428,45 Cal.2d 469
• Court: United States State Supreme Court (California)
• Decision Date: 04 November 1955
• Parties: Frank DRAGNA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Lynn WHITE, H. E. Roberson and B. D. Unland, Defendants and Respondents. L. A. 23738.

Page 428

289 P.2d 428

45 Cal.2d 469

Frank DRAGNA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Lynn WHITE, H. E. Roberson and B. D. Unland, Defendants and Respondents.

L. A. 23738.

Supreme Court of California, In Bank.

Nov. 4, 1955.

William W. Shaw, Riverside, and Robert H. Green, Los Angeles, for appellant.

Roger Arnebergh, City Atty., Bourke Jones, Asst. City Atty., Robert B. Burns and Ralph J. Eubank, Deputy City Attys., Reed & Kirtland and Robert C. Packard, Los Angeles, for respondents.

GIBSON, Chief Justice.

Plaintiff sued three members of the Los Angeles Police Department seeking damages for false arrest and imprisonment. Defendants did not demur, but when the case came on for trial they objected to the introduction of any evidence on the ground that the complaint did not state a cause of action. The objection was sustained, and defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted without leave to amend. It was, of course, error to grant the motion if the complaint states a cause of action. Chas. L. Harney, Inc. v. Contractors' State License Bd., 39 Cal.2d 561, 565, 247 P.2d 913; Budrow v. Wheatcraft, 115 Cal.App.2d 517, 522, 252 P.2d 637; see 2 Witkin, California Procedure (1954), pp. 1500, 1704; cf. MacIsaac v. Pozzo, 26 Cal.2d 809, 812-813, 161 P.2d 449.

The complaint alleges as follows: About 10 p. m. on February 13, 1950, defendants unlawfully arrested plaintiff without a warrant or process of any kind, and against his will they caused him to be taken to the offices of the Los Angeles Police Department. They locked him in a room, and, about 3 a. m., without his consent and with intent to injure and humiliate him, they admitted a large number of newspaper reporters and photographers and caused him to be photographed, knowing that his picture would be published throughout the United States as that of a criminal held for the commission of a felony. Defendants then removed him to the Los Angeles City Jail and, without permitting him to communicate with an attorney or anyone else, kept him in a cell until they released him on February 16. No charges were filed against plaintiff either prior or subsequent to his arrest. While he was in custody defendants stated to newspaper reporters that he was being held for suspicion of conspiracy to commit murder, that he was a member of a criminal gang and a mobster, that he had been under police observation for the nine months immediately preceding his arrest and that they found an arsenal of firearms in his home at the time of his arrest. Plaintiff has always been a law-abiding citizen and has never been a mobster or a member of any criminal gang. No firearms were found in or maintained in his home or removed from it by defendants, and had they kept him under observation they would have discovered no evidence to sustain his arrest or the wrongful statements which were made by defendants to the reporters. Plaintiff since his birth has resided in the city of Los Angeles, where he attended grammar school, high school and the University of Southern California. He served in the United States Army in World War II, had an eye shot out in enemy action and was honorably discharged upon the conclusion of the war. Defendants were at all times aware of and had full knowledge of the foregoing facts, and in making the arrest they acted with deliberate and premeditated meditated malice and with intent to injure plaintiff. The complaint prays for actual damages in the sum of $250,000 and punitive damages in the amount of $100,000.

Police officer who makes an arrest without a warrant and without justification may be held civilly liable for false arrest and imprisonment. Miller v. Glass, 44 Cal.2d 359, 282 P.2d 501; Hughes v. Oreb, 36 Cal.2d 854, 857, 228 P.2d 550; Gomez v. Scanlan, 155 Cal. 528, 102 P. 12; Oppenheimer v. City of Los Angeles, 104 Cal.App.2d 545, 232 P.2d 26; Kaufman v. Brown, 93 Cal.App.2d 508, 209 P.2d 156. A cause of action for false imprisonment based on unlawful arrest is stated where it is alleged that there was an arrest without process, followed by imprisonment and damages. Upon proof of those facts the burden is on the defendants to prove justification for the arrest. Hughes v. Oreb, 36 Cal.2d 854, 858, 228 P.2d 550; Kaufman v. Brown, 93 Cal.App.2d 508, 511-513, 209 P.2d 156; Collins v. Jones, 131 Cal.App. 747, 750, 22 P.2d 39; see 1 Cooley on Torts (4th ed. 1932); § 112, pp. 360-361; 22 Am.Jur. 422, 427; cf. People v. Agnew, 16 Cal.2d 655, 661-664, 107 P.2d 601. The complaint contains the essential averments for false imprisonment on this theory, but it is argued that the additional allegations regarding the statements made by defendants to the reporters show as a matter of law that defendants had reasonable cause to make the arrest. ¹ It is not alleged that the statements made by defendants were true or that defendants believed them to be true or had reasonable cause for such belief. To the contrary, it is in effect alleged that the statements were untrue and that defendants were aware of the true facts. The allegations regarding defendants' declarations to the press, which may hae been directed to the claim of punitive damages, do not negative the cause of action for false arrest.

The complaint also alleges sufficient facts to state a cause of action on the theory that there was unnecessary delay in bringing plaintiff before a magistrate. Section 849 of the Penal Code provides: 'When an arrest is made without a warrant by a peace officer or private person, the person arrested must, without unnecessary delay, be taken before the nearest or most accessible magistrate in the county in which the arrest is made, and a complaint stating the charge against the person, must be laid before such magistrate.' In the light of this section it has been held that an action for false imprisonment may be maintained if the defendant unlawfully detains the prisoner for an unreasonable period of time and unnecessarily delays taking him before a magistrate. Kaufman v. Brown, 93 Cal.App.2d 508, 511, 209 P.2d 156 (24 hours); Williams v. Zelzah Warehouse Co., 126 Cal.App. 28, 30-31, 14 P.2d 177 (32 hours); Vernon v. Plumas Lumber Co., 71 Cal.App. 112, 117-118, 234 P. 869 (2-3 hours); see Gomez v. Scanlan, 155 Cal. 528, 531, 102 P. 12 (3 or 4 hours); Peckham v. Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc., 36 Cal.App.2d 214, 218-219, 97 P.2d 472.

Defendants contend that section 849, quoted above, must be read with section 825 of the Penal Code, which provides that the defendant 'must in all cases be taken before the magistrate without unnecessary delay, and, in...