King v. State

Decision Date18 November 2015
Docket NumberB257676
Citation195 Cal.Rptr.3d 286,242 Cal.App.4th 265
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
Parties Jonte B. KING, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STATE of California et al., Defendants and Appellants.

Mesisca, Riley & Kreitenberg, Dennis P. Riley and Rena E. Kreitenberg, Los Angeles, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Kathleen A. Kenealy, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Kristin G. Hogue, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Elizabeth S. Angres, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Edward P. Wolfe, Deputy Attorney General, for Defendants and Appellants.

LUI, J.

The State of California and California Highway Patrol (CHP) Officer Benjamin Tawney appeal from a judgment following a jury trial, in which the jury found Tawney violated (1) title 42 United States Code section 1983 (hereafter section 1983 ) by making a constitutionally unreasonable detention and search of plaintiff Jonte B. King and (2) Civil Code section 52.1, also known as the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act (Bane Act), by making threats of violence.

The state and Tawney contend the jury's findings are not supported by sufficient evidence, the trial court committed evidentiary error, they were entitled to qualified immunity, and the verdicts were inconsistent. We agree the evidence was insufficient to support the Bane Act finding and reverse as to that claim only, but otherwise affirm.

King filed a cross-appeal challenging the trial court's denial of a $25,000 civil penalty under the Bane Act. Given our reversal of the Bane Act claim, we dismiss the cross-appeal as moot.

BACKGROUND

Events preceding the traffic stop

On May 4, 2011,1 CHP Officer Ryan Knauss was in his third phase of post-academy training and assigned to the CHP's South Los Angeles station. Tawney was his assigned instructor. Knauss, as trainee, was supposed "to make up" [sic ] his own stops, with Tawney "overseeing" his performance. Knauss arrived early that day, as was his practice, to "get everything set up with the vehicle," including the "MVARS" audio and video recording system. He checked the operation of the MVARS system by turning on the overhead lights to make sure the MVARS system automatically turned on. He also turned it on manually, turned on the microphones, and synchronized them to the system.

On May 4 Knauss and Tawney were assigned to patrol "Beat 2," which was located in an unincorporated area of Los Angeles County east of the Harbor Freeway, between Compton, Carson, and South Central Los Angeles. Tawney testified he "volunteered for a special operations plan in Beat 2 that evening." "[M]anagement" wanted "additional enforcement" in Beat 2 to address community concerns arising from the operation of a premises Tawney variously termed a "clubhouse" and a "nightclub" by Rare Breed, a predominantly African–American group that Tawney variously called a motorcycle club and a motorcycle gang. The CHP assistant chief who directed his subordinates to conduct the special operations testified the group was not an "outlaw motorcycle gang but a group of motorcycle enthusiasts who celebrate and gather together in a celebratory manner on regular occasions that on occasion causes disruptions to the communities where they gather and celebrate." CHP officers were supposed to patrol in the vicinity of the nightclub and "aggressively enforce all Vehicle Code violations" to attempt to curtail problems such as public intoxication, excessive traffic, racing, and loud noise late at night.

The nightclub was located near the intersection of South San Pedro Street and 154th Street. Tawney testified he had patrolled the area around the nightclub on prior occasions, observed people gathering there on Wednesday nights, heard loud music coming from the club and motorcycles there, and made more than 10 stops just outside the club before May 4. In an audio recording played at trial, however, Tawney told Knauss before they left the station to go on patrol on May 4, "Apparently this club is located down here. It's near Avalon, San Pedro, 150th Street."

Knauss testified he had, at some point, received "multiple briefings" regarding "community concerns" about a "motorcycle club" called Rare Breed. On the night in question, however, he was "not aware of any particular issues" in Beat 2.

As Knauss was driving the streets of Beat 2 with Tawney as his passenger, he saw CHP Officer Duncan and his patrol car near the intersection of Redondo Beach Boulevard and South San Pedro Street. Duncan was impounding a white truck. Knauss pulled over and assisted him in inventorying the vehicle's contents. Apart from Knauss, Tawney, and Duncan, at least two other CHP officers and two sergeants were also present, along with at least four CHP patrol cars. The officers and their patrol cars were partially blocking the street and constricting traffic flow in each direction.

King drove past, attracting the officers' attention

King testified he was driving home from a Fresh and Easy market in his Infiniti SUV when he saw CHP officers on South San Pedro Street near Redondo Beach Boulevard. His daughters, aged four and six, were in the backseat watching a movie. His SUV had a "stock" sound system that included Bose speakers. A photograph of the sound system was introduced at trial by Tawney and the state.

Knauss testified that as he assisted Duncan, he heard loud music, turned, and saw it was coming from a vehicle about 80 or 90 feet north of him. The music lasted only two or three seconds before it stopped, according to Knauss. Tawney testified at trial he heard the music coming from an SUV that was about 100 feet north of where he was standing on the sidewalk watching the trainees. In his deposition testimony, however, he estimated he heard the music from 150 to 200 feet away.2 Tawney was unable to "categorize the music" by genre. Tawney testified the music got louder and louder as the SUV approached the officers and was "at full volume" when the SUV passed them, though he could not estimate the decibel level.

Knauss testified that "[t]o the best of his knowledge" there was no sound coming from King's vehicle as it passed the officers. King testified the volume for the movie the girls were watching was set at "maybe 6 to 10 out of 20," and the volume stayed at that level until he turned the car off when he arrived home.

According to the officers, King's SUV passed within 12 feet of Knauss and about 30 feet from Tawney. Knauss estimated its speed at about 30 miles per hour, whereas Tawney estimated it at 25 to 30 miles per hour. King testified he had to "thread through" the officers and was going only five to nine miles per hour. The front windows were down and Knauss could see into King's vehicle. According to Knauss and King, King looked at the officers as he passed. King testified that he smiled at the officers. Knauss and Tawney testified they could not see King well enough at that time to determine his race.

The officers differed about which of them decided to stop King's SUV. Knauss testified he made the decision and informed Tawney and Duncan he wanted to stop the SUV for loud music. Tawney testified he initiated the pursuit by telling Knauss, " ‘Let's go. Get in the car.’ "

A video taken by the MVARS system in the officers' patrol car was played at trial. It shows Knauss and Tawney walking toward their patrol car. It then depicts the view as Knauss drove the patrol car, making several turns, and ultimately coming onto the residential street where King was driving, far ahead of them. Knauss testified it took some time before the officers caught up to him, but they "knew where he was going" when he turned right on 157th Street from San Pedro, so "[t]here was no point in speeding after him."

The detention and frisk

Knauss testified that he did not activate his car's overhead lights until after King had turned onto Lorella Avenue, a residential street, and was about 10 feet from a driveway that King immediately turned into, after turning on his turn signal. Tawney testified they did not check the license plate of King's SUV because they were too far away to see it until they actually made the traffic stop. Review of the MVARS video reveals the neighborhood consisted of single-family homes, and the driveway King turned into was at a bend in the street, next to what appears to be an industrial or oil-producing property. Unfortunately, most of the ensuing interaction between King and the officers was outside the field of the MVARS video camera.

Tawney told Knauss he would approach King first, which meant Knauss was to go to the passenger side of the vehicle to act as "cover officer." Tawney testified at his deposition he took the lead "[d]ue to the abnormal nature of the traffic stop," i.e., "[i]t was being conducted in the driveway of a residence" that was "very near to the location of the Rare Breed nightclub." He was concerned that King or residents of the house might be part of the motorcycle club. At trial Tawney testified he thought "[t]he more predominant possibility" was that King might be one of the concerned community members who had called the CHP to come and address the problems created by the nightclub.

King testified he looked in his side-view mirror and saw Tawney approaching with his gun drawn, but pointed toward the ground. King immediately placed his hands out the window and twice said, " ‘Please don't scare my kids.’ " King testified at his deposition that he only got a glimpse of the gun, but it was black. Tawney testified his gun was silver and he had his hand on top of his gun as he approached the car. When asked by his own attorney, "Was your gun ever in the holster during the time you were at Mr. King's house?" Tawney responded, "No, it was not." Knauss testified, based upon his observations from the other side of the SUV, that Tawney did not have his gun drawn at any time during the incident.

Tawney testified that when he got up to the SUV he saw two kindergarten-age girls in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
42 cases
  • Flores v. Liu
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • January 28, 2021
    ...all conflicts in favor of the verdict, and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the verdict. ( King v. State of California (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 265, 278-279, 195 Cal.Rptr.3d 286.) Through this prism, we may not reweigh the evidence ( In re I.J. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 766, 773, 156 Cal.Rp......
  • Cunningham v. Balt. Cnty.
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • July 1, 2020
    ...immunity "turns upon which version of facts one accepts, the jury, not the judge, must determine liability." King v. State of California, 242 Cal. App. 4th 265, 289 (2015). In this case, where there was a dispute of fact regarding what happened in the moments leading up to when the officer ......
  • Licudine v. Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • September 29, 2016
    ...evidence that is reasonable, credible and of solid value sufficient to support the jury's verdict? (King v. State of California (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 265, 288, 195 Cal.Rptr.3d 286 ; CADC/RAD Venture 2011–1 LLC v. Bradley (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 775, 787, 185 Cal.Rptr.3d 684.) If we must res......
  • Cunningham v. Balt. Cnty.
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • July 1, 2020
    ..."turns upon which version of facts one accepts, the jury, not the judge, must determine liability." King v. State of California , 242 Cal. App. 4th 265, 289, 195 Cal.Rptr.3d 286 (2015). Accord Blair , 469 Md. at 16–18, 228 A.3d 1094 (plurality opinion) (The jury 246 Md.App. 694 decides the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Submission to jury and deliberations
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...but the case may be retried because the jury did not unequivocally indicate an intent to acquit. King v. State of California (2015) 242 Cal. App. 4th 265, 297, 195 Cal. Rptr. 3d 286. Verdict finding the defendant conducted an unreasonable search and detention, but that no excessive force wa......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...Home Rent Review Board of San Luis Obispo (1989) 216 Cal. App. 3d 1532, 265 Cal. Rptr. 624, §10:20 King v. State of California (2015) 242 Cal. App. 4th 265, 195 Cal. Rptr. 3d 286, §§17:60, 17:120, 22:230 King, People v. (2010) 183 Cal. App. 4th 1281, 108 Cal. Rptr. 3d 333, §11:10 - Ki -  C......
  • Expert witnesses
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Objections
    • March 29, 2023
    ...not qualified to express an opinion that the insurance company acted in bad faith. Issues of Law King v. State of California (2015) 242 Cal. App. 4th 265, 293, 195 Cal. Rptr. 3d 286. Expert opinion stating that the stop and frisk were constitutionally reasonable would have been an impermiss......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT